Electoral calamity forces Bush to play defense

Tom Curry National affairs writer • Profile • E-mail

NEW YORK — Filibuster and veto.

Those are the words that may well define the final two years of George W. Bush’s presidency now that Democrats have taken control of the House of Representatives and perhaps of the Senate as well — with the fate of GOP senators in Virginia and Montana still in doubt as of 9 a.m. Eastern time Wednesday.

• Veto: Bush may well be presented with legislation he fundamentally opposes. Like Bill Clinton in 1995, faced by a GOP Congress, Bush has a chance to win by playing defense against a Democratic Congress.

After the Republicans took over Congress in 1994, Clinton vetoed 37 bills with only two of his vetoes over-ridden.

Clinton killed Republican legislation to open Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, ban partial-birth abortion and eliminate the estate tax.

One could argue that those vetoes were the most significant things Clinton did as president after the GOP era began in 1995.

• Filibuster: there are indications that, emboldened by his new members, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid may revert to his 2002-2003 strategy of blocking votes on Bush nominees to the federal bench by using threat of extended debate, the filibuster.

If Reid gets his majority, he won’t need to filibuster; the Democrats can bottle up Bush nominees in the Judiciary Committee or perhaps defeat them outright on floor votes.

Bush legacy in jeopardy
Apart from Iraq, Bush’s most lasting legacy, his impact on the federal judiciary is in jeopardy as a result of Tuesday’s outcome.

Bush’s great successes — getting Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts on the high court — may now be impossible to repeat.

Even as votes were still being counted in some races Wednesday morning, the Supreme Court was set to hear oral arguments in the most important abortion case in several years: a test of the constitutionality of the law Bush signed to ban the procedure known as partial-birth abortion.

While voters in seven states enacted measures Tuesday to outlaw gay marriages, Tuesday's outcome reduced the possibility of Bush appointing to the high court a staunch conservative who’d oppose deeming same-sex marriage a constitutional right. Bush simply may not have the votes anymore.

And it was largely Bush’s choice on Iraq that led to the Republican electoral calamity.

Bush’s effort to remake Iraq in the image and likeness of a Western democracy was always a risky gamble.

In electoral terms, the gamble seemed good in the 2002 elections when the GOP picked up eight seats in the House, but it went bust on Tuesday night.

In electing enough members to give the Democrats control of the House, and giving Democrats a net gain of at least three Senate seats the electorate seemed to be saying “re-making Iraq isn’t what we signed on for back in 2002.”

Voters sour on Iraq project
In Rhode Island, for example, Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee repeatedly reminded voters that he voted against the Iraq war resolution in 2002 — which is more than Sens. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Reid himself could say.

Yet, Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse argued that re-electing Chafee would allow the GOP to keep its Senate majority and would empower Bush.

Nearly three out of four of the Rhode Island voters interviewed in the exit poll disapproved of the Iraq project, and Whitehouse won 65 percent of those voters and won the election.

The Democrats used a clever strategy: becoming the generic “anti-Iraq war” party and not offering voters specific alternatives to Bush’s Iraq venture.

Last Friday as Democratic House candidate Joe Sestak campaigned in Manoa, Pa., I asked him how soon the U.S. troops would be brought home from Iraq if there were a Democratic-controlled House.

“Well, the ultimate decision is made properly by the commander-in-chief, the president of the United States,” Sestak said. “Those like me who believe it should be done, it is at least by the end of next year.”

But Sestak, a political novice who defeated Rep. Curt Weldon Tuesday night, said he would not vote for a measure proposed by his new colleague, Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., to force Bush to bring the troops home by cutting funding for the Iraq deployment.

“Not initially, absolutely not,” Sestak said. “I think the president needs the opportunity to hear the voice of this nation. The public is leading the leadership right now. We need to continue the funding for the safety of our troops above all else.”

Ultimately, Democrats argue, Bush of his own volition will withdraw the troops, without Democrats going to the trouble of voting to cut off the funding.

“I have no doubt that with both houses of Congress held by those members who represent a chance of strategy in Iraq, the president will ultimately listen,” Sestak said.

MORE FROM POLITICS

Politics Section Front

Obama: It’s Senate’s turn on health care Republicans seek a path to revival   GOP says Dems put agenda ahead of country 2010 elections: Democratic fears, GOP hopes   NYC mayor not humbled by close election Cheney blasts probe of CIA interrogations Majority leader: House will pass health bill Obama praises bravery after base attack Wash. state OKs gay partnership law Obama: U.S. must reverse course with Indians Politics Section Front   Add Politics headlines to your news reader: