Bush's momentum extends to Capitol Hill
I recall a cable television regulation bill that came before the then-Democrat Congress in the fall of 1992, or right smack in the middle of the presidential election campaign. President George Bush41 opposed it, threatened to veto it if passed. The Democrats passed it. Bush41 vetoed it. And the Dems then successfully overrode his veto.
That little legislative episode was symptomatic of the tenor and trends of that campaign. Pappy was drifting toward ignominious defeat at the hands of a "fat, lecherous hillbilly," and whatever clout he enjoyed after the (premature) end of the Gulf War had long since decisively evaporated.
Fast forward to the present, and the substantially superior prospects of his son as manifested by congressional machinations.
"Legislation extending three popular middle-class tax cuts for the rest of the decade sailed through Congress by lopsided votes in both the House and Senate, giving President Bush a major legislative victory on his signature economic issue, tax relief.
"Many Democrats complained during debate Thursday that the majority Republicans who control Congress should have offset the lost revenue to keep the nation's soaring deficits from getting worse. But in the end large numbers of Democrats supported the package, something that Republican tax-cut proponents had counted on occurring with a congressional election only 40 days away."
Yes, Republicans control, at least nominally, this Congress, and were Dems in charge they would never have allowed any tax cut legislation to see the light of day. But that control is due in large measure to the tireless campaigning and strategizing Bush43 did in the 2002 mid-term campaign, bucking history for a party in power by gaining seats in both houses, in stark contrast to Bush41, whose foolish betrayal of his anti-tax pledge split the GOP in the 1990 mid-terms, costing them two senate seats and nine house seats - and ultimately his own job.
The fact that most Dems caved indicates at the very least that they're looking after their own interests more than those of their party's presidential nominee. It seems to me that if Kerry had the "big mo" going for him, the "donks" would have put up a much stiffer fight, possibly including yet another Senate filibuster.
Spiking legislation the White House so clearly wanted in the campaign homestretch would have been a bigger broadside to the President than an entire file cabinet full of faked memos.
But it didn't happen, because for John Kerry's down-the-ticket brethren, self-preservation came first.
They say that "lonely are the brave."
I think that applies to vain losers as well.
That little legislative episode was symptomatic of the tenor and trends of that campaign. Pappy was drifting toward ignominious defeat at the hands of a "fat, lecherous hillbilly," and whatever clout he enjoyed after the (premature) end of the Gulf War had long since decisively evaporated.
Fast forward to the present, and the substantially superior prospects of his son as manifested by congressional machinations.
"Legislation extending three popular middle-class tax cuts for the rest of the decade sailed through Congress by lopsided votes in both the House and Senate, giving President Bush a major legislative victory on his signature economic issue, tax relief.
"Many Democrats complained during debate Thursday that the majority Republicans who control Congress should have offset the lost revenue to keep the nation's soaring deficits from getting worse. But in the end large numbers of Democrats supported the package, something that Republican tax-cut proponents had counted on occurring with a congressional election only 40 days away."
Yes, Republicans control, at least nominally, this Congress, and were Dems in charge they would never have allowed any tax cut legislation to see the light of day. But that control is due in large measure to the tireless campaigning and strategizing Bush43 did in the 2002 mid-term campaign, bucking history for a party in power by gaining seats in both houses, in stark contrast to Bush41, whose foolish betrayal of his anti-tax pledge split the GOP in the 1990 mid-terms, costing them two senate seats and nine house seats - and ultimately his own job.
The fact that most Dems caved indicates at the very least that they're looking after their own interests more than those of their party's presidential nominee. It seems to me that if Kerry had the "big mo" going for him, the "donks" would have put up a much stiffer fight, possibly including yet another Senate filibuster.
Spiking legislation the White House so clearly wanted in the campaign homestretch would have been a bigger broadside to the President than an entire file cabinet full of faked memos.
But it didn't happen, because for John Kerry's down-the-ticket brethren, self-preservation came first.
They say that "lonely are the brave."
I think that applies to vain losers as well.
posted by JASmius at 6:15 PM
<<< Home