Bush brewing up a fight with Dems
Despite all the happy talk from the administration about "bipartisanship," the Bush administration has been making lots of moves designed to provoke a response from the Dems.
Earlier this week, it was renominating John Bolton. Yesterday, it was nominating a number of judges who had been previously turned down by the Republican Senate as being too far out of the mainstream. Today,
This nomination doesn't require confirmation, but the strategy is clear. Enact lots of controversial, under the radar admistrative moves to prompt a Democratic response, then, accuse the Dems of firing first and ruining the "new spirit of cooperation."
Later: EPM, spawned a point. It's in the administration's interest to create a sense of partisan rancor for political cover when Bush wants to veto the Dems broadly popular first 100 hours legislation, minimum wage, renegotiating the drug benefit, etc.
However, for that to work, it has to look like the Dems started it.
Earlier this week, it was renominating John Bolton. Yesterday, it was nominating a number of judges who had been previously turned down by the Republican Senate as being too far out of the mainstream. Today,
The Bush administration has appointed a new chief of family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services who worked at a Christian pregnancy-counseling organization that regards the distribution of contraceptives as "demeaning to women."....
A Woman's Concern supports sexual abstinence until marriage, opposes contraception and does not distribute information promoting birth control at its six centers in eastern Massachusetts.
This nomination doesn't require confirmation, but the strategy is clear. Enact lots of controversial, under the radar admistrative moves to prompt a Democratic response, then, accuse the Dems of firing first and ruining the "new spirit of cooperation."
Later: EPM, spawned a point. It's in the administration's interest to create a sense of partisan rancor for political cover when Bush wants to veto the Dems broadly popular first 100 hours legislation, minimum wage, renegotiating the drug benefit, etc.
However, for that to work, it has to look like the Dems started it.
posted by mikevotes at
8:33 AM
4 Comments:
Should the Dems just let Bush slide on some of these things? Should they remain muted in their response to his extreme opinions? I'm not talking about nominees requiring confirmation, or legislation, but with executive orders and appointments.
I think the Dems should turn the tables and present Bush with popular legislation and dare him to veto it. The Dems are now in a position (or will be soon) to play offense. It's time to show Bush to be the "obstructionist" to American Values by vetoing things like minimum wage, relieve to the elderly, aid to students, etc. I think it's all about showing the American electorate that the Dems are the party of reason, progress and responsibility -- the party interested in lifting all boats, not just mega-yachts. I can only imagine Bush will continue to turn off Joe Q. Public over the next two years.
By
-epm, at 11:48 AM
I've been going back and forth on how you respond to this. I think it's important to maintain an air of calm so that the second point of your comment will work.
See, if he can gin up a fight before the popular legislation comes up, then he can veto it out of politics and separate it from the reality.
Gonna add that to the post and credit.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 11:54 AM
I think we're in agreement, though I was a little vague in my Rumsfeldian rhetoric... I think the Dems should respond to Bush's radicalism with a sense of disappointment and sadness that he (Bush) continues down the path of partisan unilateralism. The Dems shouldn't take the bait and (publicly) rail against everything the pres does.
Keep your powder dry. Patiently plan your legislation. Grab the bully pulpit provided by your new-found leadership of an entire branch of government. Make the pres explain why the gov should help mega-corps and multinationals (can you say "Dubai Ports?") over uplifting Americans in their daily lives and their quest for the American Dream.
By
-epm, at 1:06 PM
I agree, but that's such a tough line. Of couse, they only have to dance for a month.
And, I'd go after the oil subsidies in the second wave of legislation, maybe next year in the lead up to '08. If it is the era of economic populism, that's a big fat target.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 1:32 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home