A Divider...Not a Uniter

We've gone a few rounds here about the actions Bush took upon his inauguration in 2001 that made a mockery of his pledge to work to unite the nation after one of its most controversial elections; actions such as rolling back the Clinton EPA plans or defunding international organizations that provide abortions or abortion counseling to poor women. Those who support Bush have a difficult time understanding (or caring) just how callous and divisive these actions seemed to those of us who believe in the 100-day honeymoon period and actually had high hopes that Bush's reputation for working well with Democrats and Republicans in Texas would follow him in Washington...hopes that perhaps he truly was a new kind of moderate, compassionate Republican. A Uniter...not a Divider.

Well, according to a new interview with Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, the Bush administration didn't even wait until after the inauguration to let folks know in no uncertain terms that they were not even remotely interested in moderation or unity:

One day after the Supreme Court sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush, his running mate, Dick Cheney, went to the Capitol for a private lunch with five moderate Republican senators. The agenda he laid out that day in December 2000 stunned Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, sending Mr. Chafee on a painful journey of political conscience that, he said in an interview last week, has culminated with his decision not to vote for Mr. Bush in November.

"I literally was close to falling off my chair," Mr. Chafee said, recounting the vice president's proposals for steep tax cuts, missile defense programs and abandoning the Kyoto environmental accords. "It was no room for discussion. I said, 'Well, you're going to need us; it's a 50-50 Senate, you're going to need us moderates.' He said, 'Well, we need everybody.'"

Chafee has had offers of "counsel" from former Republican, now Independent, Senator James M. Jeffords of Vermont, and he's clearly torn about being disloyal, as George the Elder was instrumental in helping him get elected. Still, he's as bitter as I am apparently that the Bush team's promises to work and play well with others were obviously lies:

Yet the Rhode Island senator said he was angry himself- at what he regards as broken campaign promises by the current occupant of the White House. He said Mr. Bush's promise to be "a uniter, not a divider" resonated with him, as did Mr. Bush's remark in a 2000 debate that the United States would have to be humble, not arrogant, to be respected in the world.

"As soon as victory was achieved came people with a completely different agenda than being humble," he said. Asked if he regretted supporting the president, he said, "I regret that some of the answers to important questions weren't more forthright and that there wasn't more adherence to campaign rhetoric."

Bush and Cheney never had any intention of finding common ground, despite how close the election was, despite having lost the popular vote by a wide margin, despite seeing how divided the nation was...they took the reins of power and charged ahead with their agenda, leaving the moderates behind to eat their dust. Their Pageant of Compassion at the convention is clearly not to be trusted.

Comments

[Jadegold]

those of us who believe in the 100-day honeymoon period and actually had high hopes that Bush's reputation for working well with Democrats and Republicans in Texas would follow him in Washington

This betrays a certain naivete about the nature of Texas politics. Texas democrats are a pretty conservative bunch so it's not surprising Bush reached a measure of accommodation with them. Additionally, the office of Governor in Texas is a Constitutionally weak position so partisanship--by the Governor-- is a fairly self-defeating proposition.

WRT Chaffee, it seems as if he wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He's a GOPer in a very Dem state; it looks as if he's hedging his bets ala Colin Powell.

[wilfred]

Mad King George and his court made promises no different than any average teenage boy trying to get their hands into a pair of panties: say anything you can as it's all justified if you get your hands on the prize. And the next day it's amnesia-city. In their minds, all's fair in love and war.

It's a selfish way to live, a despicable way to do business and a horrendous way to govern.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"recounting the vice president's proposals for steep tax cuts, missile defense programs and abandoning the Kyoto environmental accords."

Are we to take it that these are the examples of Bush not being a uniter?

Tax Cuts. In 2001, the era of the government taking in too much money because of the high flying tech sector driven economy they didn't look so bad. Also a campaign promise.

Missile Defense Programs, that wasn't a surprise. See also the 2000 campaign.

Kyoto? Kyoto? Is that the proposed treaty that was rejected by the Senate 99-0? Kyoto never had a chance. How was that divisive? Did those 48 Democratic senators all accidentaly vote no?

Show me the compromises that Democrats were willing to make? Tighten abortion restrictions in the last trimester. HA! Cut any major program from the federal government's plate? I think not!

The problem with this discussion is that the Democratic version of 'unite with us' means 'do everything we want'.

[Slartibartfast]

Kerry was present and voted NAY. It was 95-0.

[Edward]

The problem with this discussion is that the Democratic version of 'unite with us' means 'do everything we want'.

One. Name One example of anything...anything at all... the Bush Administration did to help unite the nation...I'll wait...I have until November 2nd.

[blogbudsman]

"tax cuts, missile defense programs and abandoning the Kyoto environmental accords."

I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! Apparantly Senator Chafee was misinformed.

And how about Ted Kennedy's of betrayal The President's No Child Left Behind program. And the Steel Tariff's in an attempt to work with the unions. There's history here, no new taxes.

He learned quickly about 'everything we want'.

You can't unite what fights to be left divided.

[Edward]

"tax cuts, missile defense programs and abandoning the Kyoto environmental accords."

I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! Apparantly Senator Chafee was misinformed.

Oh for f&*%'s sake...read the text again folks.

Chaffee is commenting on Cheney's tone...his lack of interest in even debating the issues...the fact that moderates were being told the agenda was NOT going to be moderate. I know chapter one in the VRWC handbook is "Mockery Made Easy," and it's far easier to dismiss the idea that Cheney might have actually LISTENED to the moderates before laying down the law to them, given that he wasn't even actually the Vice President yet, than to consider whether or not Chaffee has a point here and Cheney was offensively aggressive in his designs on the federal government and the tone the new administration was taking, but stop and think for just a second what Cheney was actually saying in that meeting..."We're Back in Power Folks, and Ain't Nothing Gonna Stop Us NOW!"

They didn't give a rat's ass about uniting the nation.

I'm still waiting for the examples of where they tried.

[Slartibartfast]

I know chapter one in the VRWC handbook is "Mockery Made Easy"

Irony is alive and kicking, today.

[Edward]

Irony is alive and kicking, today.

I mock because I care. ;p

[Slartibartfast]

I mock because I care. ;p

[Roy Batty]That's the spirit![/Roy Batty]

[Jadegold]

Merely claiming "campaign promise" is too facile. And we must remember context.

Take tax cuts--Bush did promise to cut taxes. No doubt about it. He also said he could cut taxes without increasing the deficit. In fact, Bush also promised he could cut taxes and wipe out the National Debt by 2010. And these very same tax cuts were 'sold' on the basis that Medicare and SS funding would not just be protected but strengthened.

Missile defense; yes, Bush promised a more ambitious missile defense program, deployed earlier. However, Bush was also handing out massive tax cuts--along with the demonstrated technical boondoggle missile defense is--perhaps this was a good campaign promise to scale back. Given the fact this appointed administration was very concerned about missile defense and not so interested in terrorism--9/11 provides dramatic hindsight.

Kyoto. The key word in the NY Times is "abandoning" the Kyoto Protocols. The fact is many in the Senate--and not just on the Dem side--voted against ratification (in a non-binding Senate resolution) not because they opposed Kyoto in total. The major sticking point was the perception it would be unfair to the US for developing nations not to have emission targets.

[fdl]

i'm going to ignore the temptation to write something scathingly partisan (no, really).

Instead, i'd like to know if there are any decisions made by the current administration which the right-wing poster here will recognize as being inappropriately partisan.

here's my list off-the-cuff of where the admin could have obtained some more support from democrats while, in my view, pursuing their goals.

1. actually having a WORKING missile defense system before deploying it. i.e., spend money on testing and system development, not deployment.

2. not busting the budget. i.e., be willing to raise taxes given that we are in war.

3. actually fixing new source review legislatively, instead of just waiving it. there is way too much mercury being discharged into the air, among other pollutants. giving the big midwest power plants another generation in which to contaminate the great lakes and eastern seaboard is not a good idea.

4. proposing an abortion bill that follows minimum constitutional guidelines (i.e., that allows for the health of the mother), instead of creating a bill designed to be overturned simply for partisan advantage.

5. pursuing narrow, focused changes to the Endangered Species Act fixing the problem with critical habitat designations.

6. in Iraq, allowed the coercive inspection process to continue thru the summer, launching the invasion in the fall of 03 if needed.

7. commit significant reconstruction and demining funds to Afghanistan.

8. not break the civil service unions over Dept Home Sec.

9. propose a medicare bill which is not so grossly a handout to big Pharma.

10. fully fund NCLB. i thought the Repubs were supposed to be the party against unfunded federal mandates.

Is the above ruling from the center, or am i still being partisan?

Francis

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"The key word in the NY Times is "abandoning" the Kyoto Protocols. The fact is many in the Senate--and not just on the Dem side--voted against ratification (in a non-binding Senate resolution) not because they opposed Kyoto in total. The major sticking point was the perception it would be unfair to the US for developing nations not to have emission targets."

And that sticking point never subtantively changed. So what is your point, assuming you have one? That vote took place in 1997. Clinton worked on the Kyoto treaty for 3 years afterwards to no avail. Why would the US continue 'negotiating' at that point?

You can't unite with Democrats who don't want to unite with you.

Once again: Show me the compromises that Democrats were willing to make. Tighten abortion restrictions in the last trimester? HA! Cut any major program from the federal government's plate? I think not!

You complain about a lack of uniting, but your only acceptable definition of uniting involves Republicans voting precisely like Democrats. Where would you have been willing to compromise? You aren't. You are every bit as much of the problem as you whine Republicans are.

FDL, your list is just silly. The one that pisses me off the most is: "proposing an abortion bill that follows minimum constitutional guidelines (i.e., that allows for the health of the mother), instead of creating a bill designed to be overturned simply for partisan advantage."

That is such a classic. Every attempt to use the health of the mother exception as an exception ends up with it swallowing the whole rule. The bill allows an exception when the life of the mother is in danger. The reason it is not 'life and health' is because 'health' ends up (see California) including such ridiculous things as any mental distress or discomfort. Furthermore in 1998 the AMA found that partial-birth abortions were not medically necessary.

This seems like an excellent area for Democratic party compromise--AMA didn't like the procedure, most Americans are uncomfortable with late term abortions, a life/health exeception could be narrowly drafted by a bipartisan Congress. But no. Of course not. Because 'united' really means 'do what Democrats want'.

"not break the civil service unions over Dept Home Sec."

Nice spin. I suppose you couldn't see the response of "Homeland Security needs to be able to fire people in less than a year" coming from a mile away.

" propose a medicare bill which is not so grossly a handout to big Pharma."

Silly characterization. You also fail to report that Democrats wanted far more spending across the board in Medicare. So their objection was that Republicans did not compromise ENOUGH. Hmm, I sense a pattern.

"actually having a WORKING missile defense system before deploying it. i.e., spend money on testing and system development, not deployment."

What is your definition of working? 100% accurate? Never going to happen. You deploy whatever you have. Missile defense systems have shot down missiles in flight. Who isn't spending money on testing? There is missile defense testing all the time.

"not busting the budget. i.e., be willing to raise taxes given that we are in war."

Hey, I can't say you are wrong about absolutely everything. Can we also cut farm subsidies?

[Slartibartfast]

Sebastian, to be fair, the current NMD system is being deployed with a record amount of P-cubed-I* in the plan. Probably, Charlie Brown got tired of Lucy yanking away the football.

*Pre-Planned Product Improvement. Yes, this is a joke.

[kenB]

While not agreeing with Sebastian in all particulars, I have to say I think this whole uniter/divider argument is a crock. Are you guys really saying that a democratic adminstration in the same situation would have been any more apt to compromise, having been handed control of the WH and congress? And, if said hypothetical Dem admin did make some compromises, would you folks really have been happy about that, or would you have accused him of abandoning core Democratic principles? I remember hearing a lot of squawking from the left over Clinton's moves to the center, and he had the fine excuse of having a Republican congress to deal with.

[fdl]

i will leave it to others to decide whether my list was "just silly" or an honest attempt to look at how the admin might have done things differently over the last four years.

but certain of SH's points require rebuttal.

"a life/health exeception could be narrowly drafted by a bipartisan Congress. But no. Of course not"

Now, which party controls both houses of congress? which party controls the process of allowing amendments?

the neat thing about controlling both the legislature and executive is you can exert complete control over the legislative process. the downside, of course, is that you bear sole responsibility for drafting unconstitutional bills.

"There is missile defense testing all the time."

uh, no. not even close. simply, flatly wrong. according to the Center for Defense Information, (cdi.org for those who want to explore) there have been a grand total of 10 tests of the "Ground-Based Midcourse" missile defense system. The most recent, in December '02, was a failure. Oh, and in virtually all of the tests the target had a transponder on it saying "come get me". and the military is not using the right booster rocket, because that hasn't been built yet. and there are major problems in integrating the system.

even in this admin, there's only so much money in the budget. that spent on deployment is not spent on system development and testing.

we are not deploying a 100% accurate system. we may be deploying a system with 0% accuracy, quite literally, but for now we just don't know.

I didn't know that the faith-based aspects of the administration would include national missile defense, but these guys keep surprising me.

Francis

[radish]

Sebastian >> Homeland Security needs to be able to fire people in less than a year

Izzatso? Like who exactly? Who's needed to be fired in less than a year who could not have been fired under contract? I don't need names, just some plausible scenarios. Links and examples would be good but not necessary. Anything halfway reasonable will do...

Silly characterization.

Boy Howdy! Man, if that's not a winning argument I don't know what is. Still, futile though it may be to try and refute such an airtight case, I would just mention a) that the admin grossly (and deliberately!) misrepresented the cost of the bill, leading me to wonder whether what you say about Dems wanting to spend more is even factually true once that's taken into account, and b) I suspect, though I have no cites handy and don't intend to look for them, that the benefits in the Dem plan would have been very obviously more to individual participants than to suppliers.

What is your definition of working?

50% No, wait, 25% No no, wait, 5% No no no, a single working test. Yeah, that's it, a single real test. What does that translate to in percentages Slart?

KenB >> Are you guys really saying that a democratic adminstration in the same situation would have been any more apt to compromise, having been handed control of the WH and congress?

I can only speak for myself, but yes, as a matter of fact, I would say exactly that. In fact I'll go a little further and say that Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, and Dick Cheney are crooked, mendacious racketeers while Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi are reasonable people and Joe Lieberman is merely misguided. Strictly a matter of opinion of course.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Now, which party controls both houses of congress? which party controls the process of allowing amendments?"

Please show me the Democratic amendments that were denied that you believe are germane to my argument.

Are you guys really saying that a democratic adminstration in the same situation would have been any more apt to compromise, having been handed control of the WH and congress?

I can only speak for myself, but yes, as a matter of fact, I would say exactly that.

Please outline the policy areas that you believe Democrats would have been willing to compromise on.

May I suggest abortion? farm subsidies? tax cuts? spending cuts? affirmative action?

I didn't think so.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Fdl, "is that you bear sole responsibility for drafting unconstitutional bills."

BTW, the bill as currently drafted should not be ruled unconstitutional.

[radish]

May I suggest abortion? farm subsidies? tax cuts? spending cuts? affirmative action?

Yep. Except for subsidies, which are nonsensical because the practical difference between parties on that issue is just for show. Abortion, AA, fiscal policy, not to mention war powers, environmental regulation, food and drug regulation, civil liberties, congressional ethics, and securities and energy regulation. With Dems you would pretty much get the status quo ante in all those respects. The only major legislation would be health care and possibly education. Oh and we wouldn't be all wound up about gay marriage, but I doubt there would be any action taken either way.

You're trying to conflate the radical changes that have taken place in the past four years with continuation of policies that were already pretty much in place.

Abortion is legal, remember? It's only if your guy wins that it becomes illegal again.

[radish]

Also I can't help but notice that you ignored my other questions. I would be especially interested in your answer to the first: what kind of person at DHS could be fired or disciplined absent a union contract who could not be fired or disciplined with a contract?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"With Dems you would pretty much get the status quo ante in all those respects."

Which is a compromise with conservatives? Hardly.

Which radical changes?

Non-criminaly incompetent hires would be tougher to fire under civil contract.

"Abortion is legal, remember? It's only if your guy wins that it becomes illegal again."

Hmm, Roe v. Wade said it could be restricted in the 3rd trimester. I guess they were kidding.

[radish]

Which is a compromise with conservatives? Hardly.

Geez. Aren't you embarassed to be reduced to suggesting that conservatives have been totally disenfranchised for the past forty (or whatever) years? I mean even if that were the case how would you explain it? Are conservatives so delicate that they can't defend their agenda against the meanie liberals? Are they unable to get elected? Are the ones that get elected not really conservatives? Was there some sort of extraconstitutional liberal coup while I wasn't paying attention? What?

Non-criminaly incompetent hires would be tougher to fire under civil contract.

Heh. Considering that even the criminally incompetent don't get fired in this administration that's kind of a weak argument.

[praktike]

One key point here is the Bush administration's strategy on judicial appointments: ram 'em through, come hell or high water. Highly offensive.

Another nasty one: Homeland Security used as a wedge.

[fdl]

hold on a second. the republicans hold legislative and executive power. it is entirely their prerogative to enact every single policy measure they want, and tell democrats to go pound sand. they have. and frankly, had situations been reversed, i'd have been surprised if the democrats hadn't treated republicans the same way.

the question pending is something different: what differences would we have seen in the last three years had Bush actually ruled from the center?

i return to my prior 10 points. i think that those 10 points represent a solid centrist agenda with room for negotiation.

for example, how high a rank need a person hold at DHS before civil service protections don't apply? given the mission of the agency, couldn't it promulgate employment regulations allowing [temporary] re-assignment with very little due process in the name of national security?

given the wen ho lee case, though, i'm reluctant to allow for unreviewable employment decisions. but there should be room for reasonable compromise.

and since 3 different federal judges have invalidated the partial-birth abortion ban and none have upheld it, i'll take their collective view of the law over sebastian's.

and concerning farm subsidies, the ball's in the repub's court. the democrats already passed the Freedom to Farm bill once. that was gutted by repubs, in service of their single most powerful constituency.

Francis

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Aren't you embarassed to be reduced to suggesting that conservatives have been totally disenfranchised for the past forty (or whatever) years? I mean even if that were the case how would you explain it? Are conservatives so delicate that they can't defend their agenda against the meanie liberals? Are they unable to get elected? Are the ones that get elected not really conservatives? Was there some sort of extraconstitutional liberal coup while I wasn't paying attention? What?

Not a single one of the conservatives here has advanced an argument even close to that.

The Democratic argument here is that Republicans ought to reach out to Democrats to make compromise bills. That would be great if elected Democrats were willing to compromise. They are not.

When I specifically asked which compromises would be ok, the answer was that the Democrats would be happy with maintaining the status quo. That is a) false and b) not a compromise even if it were true.

You then go off on a huge tangent about my alleged impression that conservatives have never had power in the country. I don't have that impression and frankly I don't see the slightest reason for you to believe that I did.

So to recap. The thread is apparently about conservatives in general, and Bush in particular, not being willing to 'compromise'. Compomise takes two parties. I asked for clarification about where Democrats would be willing to compromise. So far the answer has been nothing whatsoever. Not even penny-ante things like 'bigger Veteran's Day parades'.

At this point in the discussion I am fairly confident about the reason for this--you aren't interested in compromise. That's fine. I don't mind. Just quit complaining about the Republicans failure to do something you wouldn't do yourself.

[radish]

That is a) false...

Ah. Now there we just plain disagree about an unverifiable proposition. Except, as I said, for health care and possibly education.

...and b) not a compromise even if it were true.

This is where you seem to be implying that the policies in place when GW and the 107th took office were not the result of compromises crafted over periods of years but of a partisan Democratic agenda enacted, what, prior to 1994 I guess? Or something. Actually I can't tell what you think happened, only that what you think of when you say compromise is very different from what I think of. You would probably interpret a failure to reauthorize the 1996 welfare reform act, or a reauth of the brady bill, as failures to compromise. Me, I don't see how those are anything but business as usual for bills that have technically expired, and you can't have it be okay for one without having it be okay for the other. Now if Dems passed a single-payer type of bill, that would be a failure to compromise, even if it was strictly on the up-and-up without voting being held open or bribes being suggested. Which is why I excluded health care.

I'm not suggesting that the Dems wouldn't take advantage of majority control if they had it. What I don't think they would do (though one can never tell really) is run roughshod over the process. I don't think it's Republicans' responsibility to "reach out" as you put it, but I do think it's their responsibility to obey the rules even when it interferes with their ability to promote their agenda. And I don't think Dems would even consider the kind of nonsense we're seeing from the GOP about blurring the boundary between church and state, or separation of powers.

That would be great if elected Democrats were willing to compromise.

Aw for pete's sake... You mean the current Dems? Do you ever watch C-Span? You should. The house committee meetings are particularly revealing because they think nobody's watching. The 103d and 105th got nuthin' on this congress. Just watch.

Also, you say that you asked for clarification about where Democrats would be willing to compromise and got nothing. I look upthread to 3:49 pm yesterday and see a laundry list -- admittedly short on detail -- of policy areas in which I believe the policies putatively preferred by the GOP at large would have been taken into account by a Democratic majority (or even supermajority) in both houses, and in which the GOP leadership has basically told the country -- not just the Dems -- to go Cheney itself. You seem to forget that Dems' internal dissent tends to be pretty vocal and that a lot of Dems are politically pretty close to Republicans.

You're absolutely right that I'm not interested in compromise with people who are objectively pro-torture, objectively anti-constitution, and objectively crooked though. That's who's running your party, Sebastian. Their position is love it or leave it, but maybe you can find a third way.