Both the NYT and the WaPo have major articles today on how Bush might try to salvage what’s left of his presidency. As Jim Rutenberg sees it, some kind of triangulation strategy is under consideration.
Senior Republican staff members in Congress have voiced the fear that Mr. Bush will now put his legacy over the party’s immediate future, and take his cues from President 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 one senior Republican leadership aide who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “There is no sense of wanting to defend the Bush administration right now.”
At a certain level, one expects a degree of common sense to kick in. The Bush White House can choose a rigid ideological approach to governing, which would lead to additional bitterness and gridlock, and make the far-right GOP base happy. Or the president can back away from the brink, find some common ground with Dems, and leave office with some kind of accomplishments. Since angering the base seems irrelevant — Bush and Cheney won’t seek public office again — and the president actually has some opportunities to strike a few deals with a Democratic Congress, it seems like a no-brainer.
Reagan worked with a Dem Congress; Clinton worked with a GOP Congress; and so Bush has some recent historical second-term models to choose from. Except he won’t. Indeed, he’s already made clear that he’s already chosen a more obstinate path.
The Post’s Peter Baker noted, “Bush’s opening message since the election has been one of conciliation.” I strongly disagree. Before Republicans even give up their power on the Hill, the president urged the lame-duck Congress to pass his warrantless-search legislation before they left, for fear that Dems might actually ask questions about legally-dubious domestic surveillance. He then announced he’d work with Dems on Iraq — just so long as Dems agreed that the only way to lose the war is to leave. “Conciliation”? I don’t think so.
Indeed, then there’s his recent nominations/appointments to consider.
* [tag]John Bolton[/tag] was re-nominated to the United Nations, despite (or, perhaps, because of) Dems’ strong objections.
* [tag]Ken Tomlinson[/tag] was re-nominated as chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, despite his comically ridiculous tenure thus far.
* A series of far-right judicial nominees, including Terrence Boyle, William G. Myers III, and William J. Haynes II, were re-nominated, even though the White House knows the Dems vehemently oppose their nominations.
* Bush appointed [tag]Eric Keroack[/tag] as the new chief of family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services, despite the fact that he apparently believes that the distribution of contraceptives is “demeaning to women.”
* [tag]Andrew Biggs[/tag], a zealous advocate of privatizing Social Security, was nominated to serve as the next deputy commissioner of Social Security, just a few days after Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson pledged to try and “build a consensus” on the issue.
In each instance, the White House had a choice: nominate/appoint a partisan hack and raise the ire of congressional Democrats, or tap a qualified person that befits the “bi-partisan” rhetoric. Guess which direction Bush chose?
The White House isn’t interested in getting things done, at least not at this point. Rove & Co. want to do what they’ve always done — pick fights, forgo governing, and put ideology above all. To expect anything less is folly.