Our Founders believed in the wisdom of the American people to choose their leaders and provided for the concept of divided and effective government. The majority party in Congress gets to pass the bills it wants. The minority party, especially where the margins are close, has a strong say in the form bills take. And the Constitution leaves it to the president to use his judgment whether they should be signed into law.Amen.
That gives us a clear challenge and an opportunity. If the Congress chooses to pass bills that are simply political statements, they will have chosen stalemate. If a different approach is taken, the next two years can be fruitful ones for our nation. We can show the American people that Republicans and Democrats can come together to find ways to help make America a more secure, prosperous and hopeful society. And we will show our enemies that the open debate they believe is a fatal weakness is the great strength that has allowed democracies to flourish and succeed.
To the new members of the 110th Congress, I offer my welcome--and my congratulations. The American people have entrusted us with public office at a momentous time for our nation. Let them say of these next two years: We used our time well.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
The Presidential Editorial
I don't recall ever seeing a sitting President pen an editorial before, but hey, I'm not that old. President George W. Bush has written an excellent editorial in today's Wall Street Journal entitled "What Congress Can Do For America". It does something we haven't seen in a while, going into the specifics of what he thinks can and must be accomplished over the next two years. Excerpt:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
he's sanctimonious sore loser.
ReplyDeletedo you not see the irnoy and hypocrisy in this rant? please.
TTC - Are you serious? What's wrong with the piece? How is it a "rant"?
ReplyDeleteThe problem here will be from people such as yourself, who shrug off anything that doesn't come from "your side" as 'a rant', as 'sore loserish', etc. Hopefully, the Democratic leadership takes a more mature approach.
It's Bush's way of telling America: "Look, I am ready to work with the people you elected." This way if nothing happens over the next two years (which is highly likely) it doesn't seem like it's his fault.
ReplyDeleteSmart move, Mr. Prez.
Yes Pelosi and Bush have taken a very cordial and approach and have a great and respectful relationship because they both care deeply about the country.
ReplyDeleteunrelated:
ReplyDeletehave you seen the ads that your site is generating on the left?
"the first christians tommorow 7pm on CNN...."
Stam - Yeah, they're supposed to be gone a long time ago, but they won't go. I don't know what's up with that.
ReplyDeleteTTC - I'm assuming they're both looking out for America, even if Pelosi's methods are ones I don't agree with. If either aren't in office for that purpose, they should leave office.
Moshe - Of course.
Yeah, all of the sudden he's Mr. Bipartisan. Of course I agree that the Dems should act that way, but it sucks to always have to be the good guys. The outgoing Republican House was legendary for its dirty tricks in shutting Dems out of the process. Where was Dear Leader then?
ReplyDeleteThere is a surprisingly strong connection between national health (in a vast array of indicators) and the makeup of the federal government. The strong correlation is that when the presidency and Congress are in different hands, the nation tends to do much, much better than when one party controls both branches. The cynical libertarian in me can't help but think that when government is divided, it just can't get a whole lot done... and that's a good thing.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm not particularly anti-Bush, but I do feel the need to call out one sentence:
"The minority party, especially where the margins are close, has a strong say in the form bills take."
It is hard to reconcile this with the actions, tone, and rhetoric of the Bush administration over the past 6 years. In fact, this statement is the diametric opposite to Bush's claim that his narrow 2004 victory represented some form of "mandate" that allowed him to give little weight to the minority.
Of course, history aside, I hope Bush means what he says. And I hope the recent bipartisan rhetoric on both sides transcends cheap words and manifests itself in strong results.
Um, yeah, too bad he didn't feel this way the past six years.
ReplyDelete"In fact, this statement is the diametric opposite to Bush's claim that his narrow 2004 victory represented some form of "mandate" that allowed him to give little weight to the minority."
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested to hear how you have determined that the 2004 victory was a "narrow" win. Because from my vantage point, it looked like the President and the Republicans kicked some serious Democrat behind. Of course they got their comeuppance in 2006, but that doesn't negate the fact that in 2004 the Republicans and the President had a very solid victory.
Oh, c'mon, you know that Bush didn't write it. He has a staff for that. And he didn't tell the writer what to write. He has staff for that, too.
ReplyDeleteAnd when they need more guidance there's daddy bush.
I'd be interested to hear how you have determined that the 2004 victory was a "narrow" win.
ReplyDeleteThe election came down to around 100,000 votes in Ohio. In an election in which over 120 million votes were cast, 100,000 votes represents .083% of the vote. There is no question that Bush won. But it was an election that very, very easily could have gone the other way... certainly not something I'd call a "strong mandate", let alone a butt whupping.
JA - It's not as if he was anti-Dem; it was the Dems in Congress refusing to budge an inch and trying to undermine more than anything. I'm not saying he was great, but that doesn't mean (as I think you agree) that there's anything wrong with this piece. I'm not sure what dirty tricks you're referring to, but it's the Dems who sunk Social Security, and the whole Congress who ignored Bush about pork projects (not that he vetoed anything). I like the call for a line-item veto, though I wish he'd asked for it sooner.
ReplyDeleteLT - I've actually never seen that; while on occasion it's been true, it's also often resulted in poor compromises being reached with some of the worst from both sides. OTOH, a relative who's "up there" in politics prefers that the Congress not all be on the same side as the President for similar reasons, so perhaps you're right.
Of course, history aside, I hope Bush means what he says. And I hope the recent bipartisan rhetoric on both sides transcends cheap words and manifests itself in strong results.
Amen, and well put.
It is hard to reconcile this with the actions, tone, and rhetoric of the Bush administration over the past 6 years. In fact, this statement is the diametric opposite to Bush's claim that his narrow 2004 victory represented some form of "mandate" that allowed him to give little weight to the minority.
To the first sentence, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about; to the second, I don't recall him ever saying that, though supporters definitely did.
Fern R - I only agree to some extent. It wasn't a landslide win, but I wouldn't call it narrow either.
Batya - You can't be serious. While obviously the President has a staff, Bush is notorious for being a stickler for editing all of his speeches, which is one of the reasons why he's supposed to be an excellent prepared speech orator (while not quite as good off the cuff). Most previous Presidents weren't quite the sticklers (I can't recall if they said Clinton was very lacksadaisical in editing, confident in his own ability to gauge audiences, or a stickler to evoke certain responses. Or maybe I've seen both.) And the "Daddy Bush" stuff is real garbage.
LT - You can't take the 100,000 and divide that by the 120 million; either you're going by electoral votes and noting the one state, and it's a higher percentage, or you're going by the popular votes where Bush won by a few million. I wouldn't say it could "easily" have gone the other way, but it definitely was a somewhat close election.
"I don't recall ever seeing a sitting President pen an editorial before, but hey, I'm not that old."
ReplyDeleteAnd he also has a blog :)
EK - Hey, I can't see that from work...!
ReplyDeletehes just terrified of getting a dose of his own medicine. gg
ReplyDeleteEzzie,
ReplyDeleteIf you'll recall, the 2004 election was "too close to call" in the days leading up to election day. The word "narrow" is, of course, entirely subjective. I'm not claiming the election was razor-close, but it certainly wasn't a landslide. And thus, I feel there was no significant mandate.
TTC - Why should he be scared at all? If nothing happens, he'll blame Congress. If anything does, he gets the credit. It's win-win for him.
ReplyDeleteLT - Okay, fair enough. One could argue that any win is a mandate, while one that gives the President all of Congress is a significant one. But reasonable people can disagree. :)