Thread: Bush faces uncertain path in a changed Washington

Bush faces uncertain path in a changed Washington

By Jim Rutenberg / The New York TimesPublished: November 26, 2006


WASHINGTON: President George W. Bush leaves for Europe on Monday uncertain of the Washington he will return to, or even his place in it.

Certainly the pressure is on for Bush to save a presidency mired in low poll ratings, an unpopular war and with few domestic accomplishments. And the moment would seem to call for something dramatic.

But official Washington is unsure of which way he may go in trying to salvage his legacy. Will he continue on as if nothing has changed, pursuing conservative policies he believes history will smile upon later, even if it means getting nothing past a Democratic Congress here and now? Or will he move to the political center and seek deals with Democrats that will sour conservatives, but leave him with a longer list of accomplishments when he leaves office?

As his top aides meet to plan their first moves of the new year with a new Congress - focusing acutely on his State of the Union address - Bush seems to be hemmed in from both sides.

For all of their talk about bipartisanship, the Democrats have fresh memories of six years of presidential attacks painting them as "wrong on taxes" and "weak on defense." Already they are talking about investigations into his domestic wiretapping and terrorist detainee programs.

The president's own party remains angry with him for his handling of the war, the delayed ouster of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the low presidential approval ratings that contributed to this fall's Republican wipeout.

Senior Republican staff members in Congress have voiced the belief that Bush will now put his legacy over the party's immediate future, and take his cues from Bill Clinton by "triangulating" when opportunity strikes - that is, making deals with Democrats, over Republican objections, on immigration, health care or social security.

"While the White House is trying to define their legacy, they'll try to triangulate us," said a senior Republican leadership aide who requested anonymity to speak candidly. "There is no sense of wanting to defend the Bush administration right now."

Historians argue that losing control of the House and the Senate in 1994 had its benefits for Clinton. It gave him new purpose as he struck deals with Republicans on deficit reduction and changes in a bloated welfare system, but also offered a new foil that he used with regularity.

But Clinton was only two years into his presidency, with six years ahead in which to try to regain his political footing; Bush has just two years ahead of him at the White House. And Clinton's moves to assert his own relevancy after the so-called Republican Revolution arguably came at the expense of his party; Bush and his longtime top strategist Karl Rove have put the Republican Party's future vitality at the heart of their hoped-for legacy.

Still, Bush has pledged to find common ground with Democrats, notably on a new minimum wage, proposed changes in the immigration law and the reauthorization of his main education initiative, No Child Left Behind. "I intend to work with the new Congress in a bipartisan way to address issues confronting this country," he said just after the election.

But when Bush made a similar remark in a private meeting in the Oval Office with the new Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and his new lieutenant, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Reid, according to Durbin's account, interjected that Bush had made a similar vow after the 2004 election, which was followed by still more partisan rancor. (Reid, it should be noted, has called Bush "a loser" and "a liar.")

Bush's rhetorical olive branch to Democrats has made conservatives nervous - prompting visions of a reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act that will increase spending or a new immigration system granting legal status, which conservatives consider amnesty, to illegal immigrants. One Democratic leadership aide said Bush was "most animated" during a meeting with Nancy Pelosi, the probable new Democratic House speaker, when the subject of immigration came up.

Grover Norquist, an anti-tax activist close to the White House, said he worried that, in his bid to find a long-term solution to the threatened health of Social Security, Bush will come under pressure to strike a deal with Democrats that could include a tax increase.


Norquist has argued that Bush should forget about striking any deals and should instead work to defeat the Democrats in 2008 and usher in a new Republican Congress that will finish what the president has tried to start.

Throughout the campaign year, Rove argued that Republican losses this year would register as only a blip in what he maintained was a continued, conservative march toward a sustained Republican governing majority.

Republicans close to the White House said Rove was already arguing that Bush should move to bolster his support with conservatives, who make up his base of support and will compose a greater proportion of the Republican congressional caucus after an election in which many moderate Republicans lost their seats, some to equally or more conservative Democrats.

The White House will certainly dig in hard when it comes to congressional attempts to investigate Bush's national security programs.

If anything, Democrats have taken Bush's first moves since this month's election as more provocative than conciliatory. He plans to use the lame-duck Republican Congress to push domestic wiretapping legislation that Democrats overwhelmingly oppose; he has re- nominated his ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/26/news/memo.php

The Shrub is a left wing liberal in conservative clothing. Couple that with an ego the size of North America and he will only push for what he wants.

I still believe that he sabotaged the Republicans campaigns so he could get the Democrats into power, thereby pushing through his idiot immigration policy and the NAU.

Originally Posted by CheyenneWoman

The Shrub is a left wing liberal in conservative clothing. Couple that with an ego the size of North America and he will only push for what he wants.

I still believe that he sabotaged the Republicans campaigns so he could get the Democrats into power, thereby pushing through his idiot immigration policy and the NAU.

DING!DING!DING!
WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

Thanks Pinestraw!!!

What's my prize - a couple of illegals to do my yardwork???

Saying he is a sheep in wolf's clothing is giving him too
much credit. He cannot be a liberal. Being a recovering
liberal, I can give you the questionable premises for my
former thinking. The Shrub could not give you a
coherent basis for his policies. He is a Forrest Gump
character who is sleepwalking through history & his
presidency.

I don't want to think about the alternatives because I'm
not to the point of calling my president incarnate evil.

It will be interesting what President Bush does. I doubt he does much. His popularity is low and the Iraq war will keep it low. He has no political capital. He's a lame duck that lost both houses of Congress. The Rep. really doesn't need him. They would be better off to rally behing someone new. The Demcrats don't really NEED him. They will keep him twisted and contorted with hearings and investigations. He has absolutely no leverage with them.

Both parties will focus on what's best for them, I doubt they will focus on whata's best for us. Neither party needs Bush.

I'm not surprised Bush is leaving the country again (he just got home remember?). I hope he has a lot of trips planned during next two years.

But official Washington is unsure of which way he may go in trying to salvage his legacy. Will he continue on as if nothing has changed, pursuing conservative policies he believes history will smile upon later, even if it means getting nothing past a Democratic Congress here and now? Or will he move to the political center and seek deals with Democrats that will sour conservatives, but leave him with a longer list of accomplishments when he leaves office?

Bush's presidency has been catastrophic for this country, and there is nothing he could do between now and his final day that will make Americans or history smile upon him. But then he really doesn't care about Americans or what they think. The only people who matter are his elitist friends, and he is bound and determined to do his part in bringing the NAU to fruition. So, he will continue to spout "amnesty" at every opportunity.

The Democrats, on the other hand, are hoping to elect a Democratic president and are already showing signs that maybe they will not want to rock the political boat too much with highly controversial legislation before '08. So, Bush may not get his amnesty. I guess we'll see soon enough.

Bush faces uncertain path in a changed Washington

There should be nothing at all uncertain about his path, if we had a Congress that worked.

He should be impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate.

He should then be brought up on charges of treason. When convicted, he should be given the appropriate punishment.

That's what his path should look like.

Bush has just been the latest in a long line of politicians and presidents that are giving away our country for corporate interests. Should he pass an amnesty for illegal aliens to "earn" citizenship in this country after coming here illegally and violating our laws, his legacy will be that he rewarded 12-50 million criminals for their actions and opened the gates of our country to the world without having to apply for valid documentation to be in this country as you will be rewarded with citizenship if you stay here long enough. He is another president that did not listen to the will of his people