November 25, 2003
THE GOVERNOR:
The politics of Medicare: GOP sees victory; Dems await backlash (David S. Broder and Ceci Connolly, 11/25/03, The Washington Post
With the Senate moving toward final congressional approval of his Medicare prescription-drug bill, President Bush has made a bid to break the historic political alliance between Democrats and senior citizens — a feat that could change the dynamics of next year's election and perhaps long-term partisan patterns in this country.But some Democrats, reeling from defeat on an issue they long saw as their own, said a voter backlash against a measure they consider deeply flawed could still work to their benefit. [...]
During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush introduced a plan to subsidize drug purchases for low-income seniors and promised to "make prescription drugs available and affordable for every senior who needs them." Republican ads, backed by extensive independent spending by pharmaceutical companies and business associations, were credited with reducing Democratic opponent Al Gore's advantage on the Medicare issue.
"This is another core Democratic issue that will be in the Bush column come Election Day, alongside education," said Republican strategist Scott Reed.
"It is a big short-term victory for Bush," said Democratic consultant Anita Dunn. "He can say he has actually done something on domestic policy and health care."
Regardless of what one thinks of any of the many things he's done, Mr. Bush has certainly demonstrated that it is possible to govern America, even when it's as narrowly divided and bitterly partisan as it has been for the last 20+ years. Think back to December 2000 and the numerous predictions that he'd find it impossible to do anything significant because of bad blood over the election, losing the popular vote and only having a one vote margin in the Senate and then look at the list of things he's achieved--partial birth abortion ban, multiple tax cuts, Education reform, Free Trade authority, etc., not to mention two wars. If he does, as he seems intent on doing, run on a significant agenda for the second term (entitlement, tort, and tax reform) and works to increase the GOP margin in the Senate, he's well on his way to being the most important president since FDR, which was what his supporters dreamed he could be and why they stuck with him over John MCCain, who would have won easily in 2000, but was such a mainstream politician that he'd have made not a dent on the nation. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 25, 2003 7:55 AM
What is truly amazing is why media pundits (and I am not just refering to DNC cronies like The Natio and the NYT, but even respectable mags like the Economist) continue to simplify Bush as just a "polarizing" figure. To say Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh are polarizing figures, and expect the readers to accept this as "truth" is one thing. To say that Bush is a polarizing figure (and I am not sure one should even concede that point) without exploring the psychosis that has pushed his opposition to oppose him for what he is as opposed to what he actually does is just intellectually lazy or dishonest analysis. GWB has tip toed around Liberal sacred cows far more carefully (caringly?) than many in the GOP would have preferred. I am convinced that there is nothing GWB could do that would make him tolerable to Blue America -- not even another 9/11, since this time the mainstream blame America first crowd will blame him for it. (Of course, he could always recant his faith, affect an interest in transcendental meditation, and drop his Texas drawl...)
Posted by: MG at November 25, 2003 8:40 AMRather than say "two wars" I would say two battles in the "War on Terrorism."
Posted by: Genecis at November 25, 2003 11:43 AMMcCain would have made a dent -- he would have furthered many liberal ends as only a President with an (R) because his name can do. Thank goodness we had the sense to make the conservative choice.
Posted by: kevin whited at November 25, 2003 3:27 PM