A hollow charm offensive

January 5, 2007

The LA Times had a lengthy news item today, touting the Bush White House’s efforts to “reach out to more Democrats.” The evidence points to a charm offensive that’s more style than substance.

[Harry] Reid, the new Senate majority leader, is getting the red-carpet treatment. The administration treated Reid to two military plane rides in one week. He was invited to an intimate White House party, where Bush politely asked what books Reid had been reading lately. […]

After Republicans’ resounding defeat in the fall election, Bush and his lieutenants are paying attention to Democratic power brokers they had all but ignored for years. The new speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, got a Christmas Day phone call from Bush at home in San Francisco. New committee chairmen are enjoying quality face time with Cabinet bigwigs. Even potential White House allies from the Democrats’ conservative wing had been ignored for the last six years, but are now being ushered into the Oval Office.

Those gestures and other bows to bipartisanship are signs that the swearing-in of the new Congress is not just a fresh start for Democrats; it is the end of an era for Bush, who has had the luxury of governing for most of the last six years with his own party in charge of Congress.

I don’t dismiss gestures of good will out of hand. Other than kissing Joe Lieberman, Bush spent nearly all of the last several years going back and forth between unfairly smearing Dems (during election season) and pretending Dems don’t exist at all (during the legislative process). With this in mind, I’m sure the president’s new found tolerance for grudging, obligatory politeness is appreciated.

Respectful conversation and Christmas phone calls, however, are not genuine examples of the president “reaching out to more Democrats”; they’re pleasantries with which Bush didn’t bother before Dems took back Congress. These gestures should not conceal the fact that literally nothing has changed about this president.

Style aside, the facts speak for themselves:

* Bush wrote an op-ed this week highlighting his policy agenda of “escalation in Iraq, continuing his tax cuts, privatizing Social Security and Medicare, passing a line-item veto, and ending earmarks.”

* Nearly all of the White House’s post-election nominations and appointments have been gone to provocative conservatives likely to draw Democratic opposition.

* Bush is not only poised to embrace an escalation strategy over Democratic objections, he’s doing so without any meaningful consultation with Congress at all.

I don’t mean to pick on the LA Times article, but to suggest that the White House is “reaching out to more Democrats” and giving Dem leaders “the red-carpet treatment” is rather silly. The president is going through the motions, while making the same demands he would have made if there were still a GOP majority on the Hill.

If Bush is offering an olive branch, it’s covered in thorns.

A truly offensive charm offensive. They’re treating them with all the sincerity of a lobbyist.

  • Indeed. Has the LA Times forgotten Bush’s credibility problem?

    I hope Reid answered “Worse Than Watergate” when Bush asked what he was reading.

  • potential White House allies from the Democrats’ conservative wing had been ignored for the last six years, but are now being ushered into the Oval Office.

    These are all good signs for us. But Dems just have to remember that they don’t mean the Republicans like us, they just mean they realize they have to at least be seen to be coming to the table.

  • From the LA Times article: The White House arranged for Reid and his delegation to … return from former President Ford’s funeral in Michigan by military plane. If Reid and Durbin had taken a commercial flight, they probably would have missed a White House reception Bush gave for new congressional leaders and their spouses Wednesday evening.

    Is it just me, or should Reid and Durbin have refused this blatant waste of taxpayer money and simply missed out on Bush’s stupid party? How much did that flight cost us, and what else are they wasting money on? One of the things that pisses me off about Bush is his constant waste of money flying around in AF1.

    Come on, Harry. All you needed to do was refuse to waste our money, and you would have scored a ton of political points, for the price of one stupid party thrown by an idiot.

  • Much of one of the CB postings yesterday dealt with the continuing far-right demonization and hatred of moderates and the left. Bush is no different. He was elevated a govenorship by wacko Texans, he really didn’t need to learn to deal with dissent. He is not smart, just rich and lazy. His ideology is based upon that laziness; simple truths for simple minds. He has been manipulated by far more devious, cynical, and clever individuals so that they and their cronies might loot the country. Wrapped in the flag and holding a bible, he has conducted his policies as a totalitarian.
    Do we really expect that he is really capable of doing anything but what he has always followed as “principles”? — Or that his shadowy controllers are going to simply stop trying to create a fascist state?

  • Gotta wonder if Bush refers to it as the “Democrat Party” during those intimate White House parties with Reid

  • Good point, racerx.#5 It might also be a good thing for them to point out that everything Bush has is taxpayer provided.

  • The LATimes should have done the story on how this supposed charm offensive reall wasn’t real based on recent past behavior not that he was reaching out.

  • Bush is the President of the people who agree with him and a great pretender. Maybe he really believes this is bipartisanship and Dem reachout

  • Racerx,

    I hope Reid answered “Worse Than Watergate” when Bush asked what he was reading.

    That would have been great. Of course, I bet Bush would have responded “is it any good? what’s it about?”

  • Agreed Racerx and Dale.

    Seems like republican politics & stroking, junkets, and special treatment at taxpayer/corporate expense. I hope this isn’t going to last, it’s what we voted against.

    And a phone call from Bush, sure he wasn’t drunk dialing trying to hookup a late night booty call ??

    I would imagine that made for some pretty funny table talk in the Pelosi household, “Honey, you will never guess who called (insert joke)”

  • Bush is incapable of working with anyone who doesn’t give him what he wants. There’s no doubt this limp-wristed reach across the aisle is for show. My only concern is that Harry and Nancy are just as disingenuous. They better be. It’s time to sweep the Moron aside and get some work done.

  • Isn’t the LA Times the paper that replaced Robert Scheer with Jonah Goldberg? Keep that slant in mind while I ramble.
    So the LAT says that Bush is reaching out to the Dems, but the truth is that these are empty gestures. Bush has also done some recess appointments of positions that he could not get the candidates through the new Senate, as well as the items listed above in the post.
    But the LAT says that Bush is reaching out to the Dems. When the Dems start busting his balls, will the LAT start saying that the Dems are so bad, they won’t meet Bush “in the middle” even though Bush has not moved at all? Is this a setup to make the Dems look bad?

  • I’m afraid that Racerx (#5) raises what will prove to be the most important question of the immediate aftermath of the Democrats’ takeover of both house of Congress: “should Reid and Durbin have refused this blatant waste of taxpayer money and simply missed out on Bush’s stupid party?”

    No sooner is the takeover accomplished than they immediately show every sign of falling breathlessly, like shrieking teenage girls worshipping a “Tiger Beat” idol, for the empty pomp and celebrity-worship that is Washington. D.C.

    Shame on Reid and Durbin.

  • Oh look, more classic addict behaviour from the Dry (?) Drunk in Chief.

    When finally backed against the wall, make some half-arsed placatory gestures (I sure look forward to working with ya! How’s your son? Wanna borrow my plane?) But don’t let stop you from continuing the same shit you’ve been doing all along (Appoint creeps during recess, issue signing statements, “write” a crappy op-ed).

    Watch, when the Dems finally stomp on his arse he’ll squeal with all sincerity that’s he’s been nicer than pie to them and they are just sooo mean!

    I’m beginning to think that if the last of Bush’s supporters were forced to go to AA/Al-Anon meetings his approval rating would drop to 0%. Who else but a non-recovered addict or an untreated co-dependent would think this shit is normal? Perhaps we should start with the staff of the LAT.

  • The LA Times should be referred to as The West Coast Class A Farm Team for the Chicago Tribune Nazis, because that’s what it is. There is no serious worthwhile political reporting there anymore, they fired all the people with brains.

    It’s not even good litterbox liner and would only be acceptable toilet paper substitute if you couldn’t find a cardboard box to cut up.

    Hell, even their Hollywood News is fifth rate.

    Said as someone who used to read it every day for 30 years. Past tense.

  • I don’t mean to pick on the LA Times article, but to suggest that the White House is “reaching out to more Democrats” and giving Dem leaders “the red-carpet treatment” is rather silly. — CB

    Not silly; lazy.

    They got a memo from the WH PR-section and printed it word-for-word would be my guess. WH would, naturally, want to present things, however meaningless (no more than good Southern manners require) in most gushing package.That LA didn’t bother to evaluate those things for itself is not to the paper’s credit.

    • Comments are closed.