| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Gingrich: The Right Coalition |
| 2006-11-16 |
| Which bipartisanship will Bush choose? The election results pose two enormous strategic choices for America. First, the obvious outcome of a Democratic-controlled Congress and a Republican White House is the need for bipartisan cooperation in order to get anything done. The key question is: Which kind of bipartisanship will emerge? Will there be a Ronald Reagan approach to bipartisanship which appeals to the conservative majority of the House? Or will there be an establishment bipartisanship which cuts deals between liberals and the White House? Second: Will the departure of Donald Rumsfeld and his replacement by Robert Gates lead to a tactical effort to minimize the difficulties of Iraq, or to a fundamental rethinking of the larger threats to American safety? These two choices are strikingly interrelated. An establishment bipartisanship between the White House and liberal congressional leaders will almost certainly make it necessary to focus narrowly on how to minimize difficulties in Iraq and postpone consideration of the larger threats to America for the remainder of this and into the next presidency. By contrast, a conservative bipartisanship that knits together the House Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats into a floor majority, working with a White House that emphasizes popular issues at the grassroots, would make it much easier to focus on the larger threats to American safety. (Such a bipartisanship could stress making the cap gains tax cut permanent; controlling set-asides and discretionary spending; oversight on failing bureaucracies and waste; English as the language of government; and biofuels as part of an energy policy.) |
| Posted by:.com |
| #2 "important" Preview is my friend......grrr.......... |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2006-11-16 06:52 |
| #1 Where to begin? -Politics have changed since Mr Newt's heyday. The Dems have moved a long way towards the left as the class of '68 has gripped more and more power. -The perception at that time was that the only thing that mattered was economics, history having "ended". Threats of foreign invasion and attack and immolation of Western civilization did not factor in except for a few voices crying in the wilderness, both parties equally guilty. Adding this factor changes everything, and invalidates a lot of the strategy and tactics used by Mr Newt et al ten years ago. Economics and budgeting are and always will be inportant but they no longer exist in a vacuum. -The so-called Blue Dog Dems are a much smaller percentage of their party, and are viewed askance by the leadership. Witness the recent plight of Joe Lieberman. -The newly elected Dems that Mr Newt takes for granted as being centrist or conservative are not proven, yet, as either, and should not be considered as such until empirical proof exists (I am HIGHLY skeptical that they are centrist or conservative on much, just a few social issues). -The leadership in either party is notoriously harsh (and successful) in their attempts to rein in and control freshman members, and given the opposition to winning the battle for Iraq specifically and the WoT generally by the left in this country, this does not bode well for getting freshman members on board for our "security". -W has a few not-so-conservative ideas of his own, particularly with regard to immigration reform, that he will have to forge alliances with the leftist leadership to accomplish, and this will alienate him from any legitimately centrist Democrats. What Mr Newt is doing is projecting his own set of circumstances onto a new playing field, perhaps even a new sport. He may be right, but if so it will only be by accident. All the "work" in the world may not be enough - even if it does unite whatever few non-leftist Dems that exist in the congress - to achieve anything meaningful. I hope Mr Newt is right, but I'm skeptical. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2006-11-16 06:51 |