November 6, 2002
NO TIME FOR HUBRIS:
White House Maps Ambitious Plans (Dana Milbank and Jonathan Weisman, November 6, 2002, Washington Post)With Republicans gaining control of both the White House and Congress, Bush administration officials last night began to prepare an ambitious legislative agenda to press their new -- and somewhat unexpected -- advantage.Suddenly, items that had been bottled up in the Democratic Senate have new life. President Bush has new hopes for action on his conservative slate of judges, his energy plan calling for drilling in Alaska's wildlife refuge, and the policies he favors on topics such as homeland security, terrorism insurance and prescription drug coverage. With Democrats losing their ability to set the Senate schedule and launch probes of the administration, chances improve for Bush's hopes to extend last year's tax cuts, curtail jury awards, cut business regulations and overhaul Medicare.
At the same time, White House officials said last night that most of their early effort in the new Congress will revolve around stimulating economic growth. Wary of the struggling economy as a vulnerability for Bush heading into his reelection race, administration officials said Bush was likely to introduce a new economic-stimulus package early next year. Among the plans being drawn up are new tax cuts for businesses and investors.
The officials said they recognize that the economy now will be squarely on Bush's shoulders, and he will no longer be able to blame Democratic Senate leaders or former president Bill Clinton. "Republicans have the keys to the car and we're going to have to take action and continue to work for economic growth," a White House official said.
This is a time when the GOP can be very generous to the enemy and do itself much good. Rather than trying to ram through the most extreme (which is not necessarily meant to be pejorative) versions of each bill, they can reach out to Senators Pryor, Miller, Bayh, the Nelsons, etc., and get slightly less ambitious bills but ones that will be bipartisan enough to take some more of the edge off of the Party's image.
Posted by Orrin Judd at November 6, 2002 8:44 AM
The GOP is not extreme right, the Dems are extremely left. Compromise would be the wrong thing to do.
Posted by: grant at November 6, 2002 8:18 AMSorry Grant, am differing.
The fact is, the GOP, certainly in the 90's, proved itself magnificent at so antagonizing it's enemies and generously feeding them red meat to rally their base that the Dems went on to win elections in 96, 98, and nearly 2000.
If the GOP decides that "now is the time to run roughshod over their adversaries, there is a strong chance the Dems will do well in 04, especially since anything bad can be laid at their door.
But if they speak SOFTLY while carrying the big stick they were given last night, if they decide their numbers WILL allow them to accomplish great things no matter what, and therefore at least ACT like they are listening to the other 48%, no clubbing them over the head, if they push Bush's agenda with artfulness and subtlety bacause, again, they know they will win the votes in the end, if they do this and thus prove they have learned the lessons of blowback they should have learned in the 90's.... do that, and yes they do stand to do for Republicans what the Democrats did in the 30's.
Republicans have proved themselves very good at blowing it. They'd better not do it again.
OJ is right.
There is a reason politcs is called an art, and "artful" is hardly the word I would use to describe the GOP Congress of the 90's.
It's not even so much a matter of compromise as of giving Democrats a seat at the table and credit for legislation. Grab Mark Pryor, Zell Miller, Ben Nelson, etc, and ask them what their top priorities are and then put theiur names on the bills and invite them to all the events.
Posted by: oj at November 6, 2002 8:51 AMOrrin the merciful!!
...But of course it makes good ense, especially political sense. Unless, the President feels that he has the mandate to churn up the hubris. In which case, watch out in 2004....
Now is the time to propose sweeping Corporate Welfare reform, as OJ has mentioned in previous posts. Let the Democrats and McCain identify all the corporate pork in the budget and this administration will eliminate it.
Posted by: The Other Brother at November 6, 2002 9:37 AMCorporate tax breaks too. It would be better to just have no corporate taxes at all than the current system of purchased breaks. Nothing would more surely reduce the influebce of money in politics than a tax system that did not reward campaign contributions.
Posted by: oj at November 6, 2002 10:20 AMI agree wholeheartedly. Those five gentlemen - and you shouldn't forget John Breaux either - represent votes that can fall into the president's column when it really counts if he plays his cards right. I imagine that pro-RTKBA, evangelical Christian Mark Pryor will soon become one of the left's _least_ favorite Democrats in any event, which opens up additional opportunities for GWB to stroke him into switching party allegiance. Who wants to open a betting pool as to when Zell Miller will come over to the light side?
Posted by: Joe at November 6, 2002 3:51 PMI am amused by your brackets, Orrin. Ah, yes, the Civil War and the Great Depression, the good ol' days!
Posted by: Harry at November 6, 2002 4:00 PMHarry:
It was probably the peak period of freedom from government (without ensuing anarchy) in human history.
It was certainly free from government where my ancestors lived, with the result that my grandfather had to send his wife and 13-month-old son away for a year and sleep with a loaded repeater rifle by his side and a loaded and cocked revolver in his hand lest the nightriders kill him down for the crime of testifying against the Klan in a murder.
Kids didn't have to go to school, either, since there weren't any schools.
Builders were free to erect structures without any regard for fires, with the result that thousands of people burned to death.
Etc.
Or he could have just moved.
Posted by: oj at November 6, 2002 7:17 PMHarry: If you are referring to racial violence endemic in the South prior to 1950, then consider just which political party was supported by the fellows who were threatening your forebearers. Hints:
1. they certainly were not Republicans
2. look into the political career and ideology of long term Senator Tom Watson of Georgia.
See http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/051898/met_124-2334.shtml
for a benign revisionist view of the career of this Populist demogogue who was foursquare behind implementation of Jim Crow laws in Georgia and the South.
They weren't liberals, either.
Orrin said there wasn't much anarchy during his favorite period. I say there was. And not only in the South and not only racial.
I wouldn't swap today for 1860-1932.
Sure, grandpa could have moved, but then a vicious band of killers would have been left in control of the county. He was the only man in town willing to testify to the federal grand jury. End result: Klan broken in that part of the country for a generation, killers sent to federal prison in Ohio.