THREE CHEERS FOR THE KNOW-NOTHING PUNDITS:

TWO CHEERS FOR THE DO-NOTHING PRESIDENCY (Etc., 11.01.02, New Republic)

It's no secret why the president is supposedly so intent on helping elect Republicans this fall. As The Wall Street Journal's Jeanne Cummings explains it:

"Most of [the President's] major proposals are languishing in Congress--his faith-based initiative, judicial appointments, the proposed Homeland Security Department, an energy-policy overhaul, pension protections and a prescription-drug benefit. Mr. Bush hopes to break through that logjam in the two-year ramp up to 2004--when swing voters will be crucial to his re-election hopes--and the best if not only way to do so is to help Republicans retake the Senate and keep the House."

But the more you think about it, this doesn't entirely make sense. To take just one example, it's tough to see how George W. Bush improves his reelection prospects if Republicans retake the Senate and ram through all those backed-up, right-wing judicial nominees. Cummings's article quotes the president telling participants in a Colorado rally that "We need to change the Senate for a lot of reasons, and one reason is to make sure we've got a sound judiciary. There's no question where [incumbent Colorado Senator] Wayne Allard stands when it comes to good, conservative judges." But if all those good, conservative judges actually do get confirmed, it seems like the backlash would help Democrats a lot more than the victory would help Republicans. We'd guess most voters wouldn't describe their judicial philosophy as good and conservative. (A similar logic probably applies to Bush's energy policy.)

This is a popular theme in some circles, that Mr. Bush would rather not pass his agenda and is counting on a Democrat Senate to stop it, but it's absurd. For one thing, these are the issues that Democrats use to scare voters--the threat of judicial nominees, drilling in ANWAR, Social Security privatization--or to show that the GOP doesn't care about people--after all they haven't passed a prescription drug plan or pension protection, etc.. So what rational person would not prefer to have at least enacted the agenda items that they are being blamed for anyway? To the extent that there's a political price to be paid for drilling in ANWAR, Mr. Bush has already paid it, but his oil buddies haven't actually gotten to despoil the pristine wilderness. If you are going to carry a reputation as the enemy of the caribou, wouldn't you want to go and at least make your pals rich?
Posted by Orrin Judd at November 4, 2002 8:49 PM