Progress in D.C. requires parties to move to center
Progress in D.C. requires parties to move to center
Bush, Pelosi can be expected to find some common ground
01-01) 04:00 PST Washington -- When President Bush squares off with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi this year, don't be surprised if Mr. Conservative Republican steps left and Mrs. Liberal Democrat steps right, and the two wind up holding hands at more than one bill-signing ceremony.
Sure, there may be plenty of unfriendly investigations and vetoes littering the way, but the politics of a lame-duck president and a tightly constrained opposition Congress could make for some eyebrow-raising nuptials.
Recent discussions in the Oval Office have taken some surprising turns, say Democrats who have visited Bush there since the election.
"He's all into switch grass," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, who co-chairs the moderate New Democrat coalition, describing Bush's fresh fascination with alternative fuels. Tauscher said Bush pointed out that he was the first president to acknowledge America's "addiction to oil" and seemed "very engaged and wants to move forward" on a new approach to energy.
Facing a Democratic-controlled House and Senate for the first time in his presidency, an unpopular war, and wholesale desertions within a Republican Party already looking past him to 2008, Bush stands at the bleakest point of his tenure at the White House. But analysts say he can find solace in history, which warns foes never to underestimate even the most down-and-out president.
Republican Ronald Reagan was mired in the Iran-Contra scandal and had lost control of the Senate at the same point in his second term. The arch enemy of the Soviet Union and architect of a massive military buildup went on to sign a historic nuclear disarmament treaty with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.
Democrat Bill Clinton defended his relevance after Democrats lost the House and Senate in 1994 following the collapse of his ambitious effort to remake the U.S. health care system. He went on to win a second term by stealing Republican thunder on issues such as balancing the budget and reforming welfare.
Bush aides are studying these models as they look to the last two years of his presidency. Energy and immigration present obvious areas of common ground between the Republican president and Democratic Congress.
"Not that he's asked me for advice, but I would take the rhetoric of his last State of the Union and be serious about doing a very big alternative energy drive," said Robert Borosage, co-director of the liberal Campaign for America's Future, which worked with Pelosi to help kill Bush's Social Security overhaul. "Then the Democrats and he could cooperate easily on something of national importance that the public loves."
Iraq, however, is the albatross of the Bush presidency that neither Clinton nor Reagan faced. Reagan was able to turn to foreign policy, a popular harbor of prerogative for beleaguered presidents, to revive his second term. Clinton was only in his first term in 1994 and was still his party's leader.
Bush is a lame duck and unless there is a major turnaround in Iraq, the war will follow Bush through the rest of his presidency, promising to overshadow everything else.
All the more reason to try to work with Democrats where he can, experts said.
"Bush really needs to consider trying to shake things up and identify a major issue in which he can engage the Democrats and the public on," said former Clinton aide Chris Lehane, who later served as Vice President Al Gore's press secretary during the 2000 presidential campaign against Bush. "He needs to do his version of Nixon going to China -- or borrow from (California Gov.) Arnold (Schwarzenegger's) comeback play book -- and that would be offering a bold, smart energy proposal that would address security issues in the Middle East, global warming and energy independence."
Frank Donatelli, a former Reagan political aide, said Bush should seek "floating coalitions" wherever he can find common ground with Democrats, combined with a vigorous use of the veto to maintain his leverage and relevance. Bush has vetoed just one bill in his presidency, a feat last achieved by Thomas Jefferson.
"You want to try to be on the offensive as much as possible," Donatelli said. "The longer you remain relevant on Capitol Hill, the longer you'll remain relevant in the public debate and with the American people generally."
Bush has already signaled that he might accept an increase in the minimum wage, which Democrats intend to pass in their first 100 hours in control. He has also told Democrats that he wants to work with them on immigration, where his more welcoming approach has always been more in sync with Democrats than with his own party. He has volunteered his interest in biofuels.
Such bipartisan moves "would basically take the steam away from the Democratic Party, so that in 2008 the Democrats just don't have that same fire against George Bush to run with," said Julian Zelizer, a congressional historian at Boston University. "That's the advantage of divided government and bipartisan deals. It can kill some of the Democratic energy very effectively, and even a conservative understands that."
Republicans hankering after their party's 2008 presidential nomination, such as Arizona Sen. John McCain, face a similar incentive to cut a few "strategic deals" with Democrats, Zelizer said, so they can campaign on something other than Bush's presidency.
Many point to Bush's famously warm relations with Democrats when he was governor of Texas.
"Clearly that's not the model he's followed since 9/11," said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic group. "But there is a precedent for him to try to get things done rather than pursue polarizing strategies. That's in the president's own experience."
Although most Capitol Hill Democrats are a far cry from the Texas variety, GOP consultant Rich Galen noted that the incoming Democratic freshman class "is very much like Texas Democrats."
In fact, conservative Blue Dogs and moderate New Democrats supplied a hefty portion of their party's victory in November. That puts constraints on Pelosi, who must work to ensure their survival in Republican-leaning districts.
The first move in that direction by the speaker-to-be was to endorse a "pay-as-you-go" budget rule that requires any new spending to be offset by spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere. Moderate Democrats have also promised to end deficit spending.
"Democrats really have their hands tied with the agreement they just made on the budget," Borosage said. "With Democrats committed to pay-go and Republicans holding a veto over any tax increase, it's hard to imagine we have money to do much of anything."
Democrats hold a one-vote margin in the Senate, the tenuousness of which was made clear by the illness of South Dakota Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson. Even if Johnson recovers and secures the Democrats' majority, Republicans still have 49 votes -- more than the 41 they need to block legislation through a filibuster.
Democrats will also find it hard to override Bush vetoes, which require an even steeper two-thirds majority in both chambers.
"The veto is near absolute," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "Even when you add all the moderate Republicans and assume a 100 percent Democratic vote, you still can't get two-thirds plus one."
These are among the reasons why Pelosi and soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada are promising to concentrate on oversight hearings and ethics reform -- which cost no money and do not require Bush's approval -- rather than grand new bargains to reform health care, for example. Ditto for Bush's renewed talk of entitlement reform, which neither party seems eager to address.
"He's still talking about addressing entitlements, and preachers are still talking about sin," Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College, said of Bush. "Sin is still with us, and so are the financial problems of entitlements."
Leon Panetta, a former Democratic congressman from Monterey tapped by Clinton to shake up the White House as chief of staff after the 1994 election, said Bush should try to strike some deals with Democrats.
"It would seem to me he would want to work with the Democratic Congress and get through some key legislation to be able to say to the country that the Bush administration was able to achieve some important goals, beyond whatever the hell happens in Iraq," Panetta said. "Otherwise that will pretty much dominate whatever history has to say about this administration."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/01/MNG3CNB93M1.DTL&feed=rss.news
Bush, Pelosi can be expected to find some common ground
01-01) 04:00 PST Washington -- When President Bush squares off with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi this year, don't be surprised if Mr. Conservative Republican steps left and Mrs. Liberal Democrat steps right, and the two wind up holding hands at more than one bill-signing ceremony.
Sure, there may be plenty of unfriendly investigations and vetoes littering the way, but the politics of a lame-duck president and a tightly constrained opposition Congress could make for some eyebrow-raising nuptials.
Recent discussions in the Oval Office have taken some surprising turns, say Democrats who have visited Bush there since the election.
"He's all into switch grass," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, who co-chairs the moderate New Democrat coalition, describing Bush's fresh fascination with alternative fuels. Tauscher said Bush pointed out that he was the first president to acknowledge America's "addiction to oil" and seemed "very engaged and wants to move forward" on a new approach to energy.
Facing a Democratic-controlled House and Senate for the first time in his presidency, an unpopular war, and wholesale desertions within a Republican Party already looking past him to 2008, Bush stands at the bleakest point of his tenure at the White House. But analysts say he can find solace in history, which warns foes never to underestimate even the most down-and-out president.
Republican Ronald Reagan was mired in the Iran-Contra scandal and had lost control of the Senate at the same point in his second term. The arch enemy of the Soviet Union and architect of a massive military buildup went on to sign a historic nuclear disarmament treaty with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.
Democrat Bill Clinton defended his relevance after Democrats lost the House and Senate in 1994 following the collapse of his ambitious effort to remake the U.S. health care system. He went on to win a second term by stealing Republican thunder on issues such as balancing the budget and reforming welfare.
Bush aides are studying these models as they look to the last two years of his presidency. Energy and immigration present obvious areas of common ground between the Republican president and Democratic Congress.
"Not that he's asked me for advice, but I would take the rhetoric of his last State of the Union and be serious about doing a very big alternative energy drive," said Robert Borosage, co-director of the liberal Campaign for America's Future, which worked with Pelosi to help kill Bush's Social Security overhaul. "Then the Democrats and he could cooperate easily on something of national importance that the public loves."
Iraq, however, is the albatross of the Bush presidency that neither Clinton nor Reagan faced. Reagan was able to turn to foreign policy, a popular harbor of prerogative for beleaguered presidents, to revive his second term. Clinton was only in his first term in 1994 and was still his party's leader.
Bush is a lame duck and unless there is a major turnaround in Iraq, the war will follow Bush through the rest of his presidency, promising to overshadow everything else.
All the more reason to try to work with Democrats where he can, experts said.
"Bush really needs to consider trying to shake things up and identify a major issue in which he can engage the Democrats and the public on," said former Clinton aide Chris Lehane, who later served as Vice President Al Gore's press secretary during the 2000 presidential campaign against Bush. "He needs to do his version of Nixon going to China -- or borrow from (California Gov.) Arnold (Schwarzenegger's) comeback play book -- and that would be offering a bold, smart energy proposal that would address security issues in the Middle East, global warming and energy independence."
Frank Donatelli, a former Reagan political aide, said Bush should seek "floating coalitions" wherever he can find common ground with Democrats, combined with a vigorous use of the veto to maintain his leverage and relevance. Bush has vetoed just one bill in his presidency, a feat last achieved by Thomas Jefferson.
"You want to try to be on the offensive as much as possible," Donatelli said. "The longer you remain relevant on Capitol Hill, the longer you'll remain relevant in the public debate and with the American people generally."
Bush has already signaled that he might accept an increase in the minimum wage, which Democrats intend to pass in their first 100 hours in control. He has also told Democrats that he wants to work with them on immigration, where his more welcoming approach has always been more in sync with Democrats than with his own party. He has volunteered his interest in biofuels.
Such bipartisan moves "would basically take the steam away from the Democratic Party, so that in 2008 the Democrats just don't have that same fire against George Bush to run with," said Julian Zelizer, a congressional historian at Boston University. "That's the advantage of divided government and bipartisan deals. It can kill some of the Democratic energy very effectively, and even a conservative understands that."
Republicans hankering after their party's 2008 presidential nomination, such as Arizona Sen. John McCain, face a similar incentive to cut a few "strategic deals" with Democrats, Zelizer said, so they can campaign on something other than Bush's presidency.
Many point to Bush's famously warm relations with Democrats when he was governor of Texas.
"Clearly that's not the model he's followed since 9/11," said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic group. "But there is a precedent for him to try to get things done rather than pursue polarizing strategies. That's in the president's own experience."
Although most Capitol Hill Democrats are a far cry from the Texas variety, GOP consultant Rich Galen noted that the incoming Democratic freshman class "is very much like Texas Democrats."
In fact, conservative Blue Dogs and moderate New Democrats supplied a hefty portion of their party's victory in November. That puts constraints on Pelosi, who must work to ensure their survival in Republican-leaning districts.
The first move in that direction by the speaker-to-be was to endorse a "pay-as-you-go" budget rule that requires any new spending to be offset by spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere. Moderate Democrats have also promised to end deficit spending.
"Democrats really have their hands tied with the agreement they just made on the budget," Borosage said. "With Democrats committed to pay-go and Republicans holding a veto over any tax increase, it's hard to imagine we have money to do much of anything."
Democrats hold a one-vote margin in the Senate, the tenuousness of which was made clear by the illness of South Dakota Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson. Even if Johnson recovers and secures the Democrats' majority, Republicans still have 49 votes -- more than the 41 they need to block legislation through a filibuster.
Democrats will also find it hard to override Bush vetoes, which require an even steeper two-thirds majority in both chambers.
"The veto is near absolute," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "Even when you add all the moderate Republicans and assume a 100 percent Democratic vote, you still can't get two-thirds plus one."
These are among the reasons why Pelosi and soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada are promising to concentrate on oversight hearings and ethics reform -- which cost no money and do not require Bush's approval -- rather than grand new bargains to reform health care, for example. Ditto for Bush's renewed talk of entitlement reform, which neither party seems eager to address.
"He's still talking about addressing entitlements, and preachers are still talking about sin," Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College, said of Bush. "Sin is still with us, and so are the financial problems of entitlements."
Leon Panetta, a former Democratic congressman from Monterey tapped by Clinton to shake up the White House as chief of staff after the 1994 election, said Bush should try to strike some deals with Democrats.
"It would seem to me he would want to work with the Democratic Congress and get through some key legislation to be able to say to the country that the Bush administration was able to achieve some important goals, beyond whatever the hell happens in Iraq," Panetta said. "Otherwise that will pretty much dominate whatever history has to say about this administration."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/01/MNG3CNB93M1.DTL&feed=rss.news
posted by presgore19 at 7:36 AM
<< Home