Why did President Bush choose not to be at least somewhat bi-partisan?

Great Debates
21

I love all this revisionist history about Bush being so partisan when he took office. As I pointed out above, two of Bush’s most controversial initiatives – the No Child Left Behind Act and the Patriot Act – were passed with very strong bipartisan support. Furthermore, as was also pointed out, the war in Iraq – in the beginning – was also supported across party lines.

And it’s interesting, Chance, that you bring up the treatment of judicial nominees. Sure, there were a couple of them that Republicans did not bring up for a vote when they controlled the Senate. That is a far cry from the treatment of Bush’s nominees, who were prevented from seeing a vote by Democrats when the Democrats were in the minority. Furthermore, Clinton’s Supreme Cotheurt nominees got a lot more GOP support than Bush’s nominees got Democratic support. The Democrats in Congress have been just as partisan (if not more so) than Bush, and yet those here wish only to blame Bush for it. Interesting.

22

[QUOTE=Renob]
Furthermore, as was also pointed out, the war in Iraq – in the beginning – was also supported across party lines.
[/quote]
Dude. Kimstu proved this false not a dozen posts before yours. Stop saying it. It isn’t true.

Roberts was approved 78-22. Democrats/Independents voted 23-22 in support of the nomination. Seems pretty bipartisan to me.
[del]Scalia Jr.[/del]Alito’s nomination was a bit more rocky. 58-42 along party lines.

Perhaps Clinton’s nominees were a bit more centered than Mr. Bush’s? Certainly, this article makes a reasoned case that Breyer in particular was a very centric candidate earning praise from both sides of the aisle.

23

[QUOTE=Zakalwe]
Dude. Kimstu proved this false not a dozen posts before yours. Stop saying it. It isn’t true.
[/quote]

I said that it had strong bipartisan support, not that all Democrats supported it. The 2004 Dem VP nominee supported it, the 2006 Presidential nominee supported it, and the likely 2008 nominee (Clinton) supported it.

And there was absolutely no reason for those 22 to oppose Roberts. He was very well qualified and impressed everyone during his hearings.

Exactly. When Scalia was nominated (during an era of much greater bipartisanship) he was approved unanimously.

Breyer was indeed a centrist nominee, and he received very high level of GOP support. Ginsburg, however, was a very liberal nominee, and she also received high levels of GOP support.

24

[QUOTE=Renob]
I said that it had strong bipartisan support, not that all Democrats supported it. The 2004 Dem VP nominee supported it, the 2006 Presidential nominee supported it, and the likely 2008 nominee (Clinton) supported it.

And there was absolutely no reason for those 22 to oppose Roberts. He was very well qualified and impressed everyone during his hearings.

[/QUOTE]
So 39% of the Democrats voting for the Iraq war constitutes strong bipartisan support, but 50% of Democrats supporting a judicial nominee is not strong bipartisan support?

25

[QUOTE=Zakalwe]
So 39% of the Democrats voting for the Iraq war constitutes strong bipartisan support, but 50% of Democrats supporting a judicial nominee is not strong bipartisan support?
[/QUOTE]

I think the two cases are a little different. On the Iraq war, you had the leaders of the party supporting it as well as a good number of Representatives and Senators doing so, too. Sure, it wasn’t a majority, but it was a large number.

On the Roberts’ nomination, it was pretty universally agreed that Roberts was well-qualified, handled the confirmation hearings quite well, and was well within the mainstream of judicial opinion. In the past, nominees like this (and even more conservative ones, like Scalia) were approved with little dissent. Having half the Senators vote against Roberts shows that no matter who Bush nominated, they would oppose him/her.

26

Renob, there’s a difference between bipartisanship and surrender. Bipartisanship is a partnership where both sides get some say in the final outcome. Surrender is where one side is told to shut up and vote the way the other side wants. The Bush adminstration has never grasped the first concept - their guiding principle has been “we’ve got the power so we’re going to use it anyway we want.” The only time they didn’t get what they want was the occasions when it turned out they didn’t have sufficient power - they never voluntarily offered a compromise.

27

[QUOTE=Renob]
On the Roberts’ nomination, it was pretty universally agreed that Roberts was well-qualified, handled the confirmation hearings quite well, and was well within the mainstream of judicial opinion. In the past, nominees like this (and even more conservative ones, like Scalia) were approved with little dissent. Having half the Senators vote against Roberts shows that no matter who Bush nominated, they would oppose him/her.
[/QUOTE]

Roberts, a socially conservative Catholic, was also widely perceived as an attempt at court-packing wrt Roe v Wade. In order to lessen the opposition from Dems and Pubbie moderates, the Bush Admin made a big deal out of what a moderate guy Roberts was. This so alarmed the theocons that Bush had to reassure James Dobson that Roberts would vote their way on abortion. This alarmed the Dems and moderates.

In short, Roberts’ nomination was hardly the straightforward thing you make it out to be – Roberts, though agreed by all to be competent, was an element in the abortion struggle in the US, and it’s not surprising he wasn’t unanimously confirmed – politicians on both sides of the aisle had to play to their base.

28

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Renob, there’s a difference between bipartisanship and surrender. Bipartisanship is a partnership where both sides get some say in the final outcome. Surrender is where one side is told to shut up and vote the way the other side wants. The Bush adminstration has never grasped the first concept - their guiding principle has been “we’ve got the power so we’re going to use it anyway we want.” The only time they didn’t get what they want was the occasions when it turned out they didn’t have sufficient power - they never voluntarily offered a compromise.
[/QUOTE]

That is simply inaccurate. Look at the No Child Left Behind Act. When Bush first proposed it, it didn’t look much like the bill that became law. There was a variety of school choice provisions that were stripped out, which were really the main reforms that Bush was pushing for. The NCLB Act that emerged from Congress was, in large part, the child of Ted Kennedy.

Or take reauthorization of the Patriot Act. While the final bill that emerged was, in general, what existed before, the Bush Administration had to compromise with a group of Democrats and disaffected Republicans about some of the provisions.

Sure, you can dismiss these as saying that they never “voluntarily offered a compromise.” Well, no one voluntarily offers a compromise. One side wants A, the other side wants B, and both are force to compromise to get C. To hold Bush to a different standard in bipartisanship than every other President, as your definition does, is ridiculous.

29

[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
In short, Roberts’ nomination was hardly the straightforward thing you make it out to be – Roberts, though agreed by all to be competent, was an element in the abortion struggle in the US, and it’s not surprising he wasn’t unanimously confirmed – politicians on both sides of the aisle had to play to their base.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Democrats play the partisan game, too. That’s my point. I’m trying to point out that Democrats share plenty of the blame for the breakdown of bipartisanship.

30

[QUOTE=Renob]
I love all this revisionist history about Bush being so partisan when he took office. As I pointed out above, two of Bush’s most controversial initiatives – the No Child Left Behind Act and the Patriot Act – were passed with very strong bipartisan support. Furthermore, as was also pointed out, the war in Iraq – in the beginning – was also supported across party lines.

And it’s interesting, Chance, that you bring up the treatment of judicial nominees. Sure, there were a couple of them that Republicans did not bring up for a vote when they controlled the Senate. That is a far cry from the treatment of Bush’s nominees, who were prevented from seeing a vote by Democrats when the Democrats were in the minority. Furthermore, Clinton’s Supreme Cotheurt nominees got a lot more GOP support than Bush’s nominees got Democratic support. The Democrats in Congress have been just as partisan (if not more so) than Bush, and yet those here wish only to blame Bush for it. Interesting.
[/QUOTE]

Yep, Renob, that’s the lie that conservatives are hard at work at shaping into popular wisdom. But I won’t bother refuting it; Kimstu has already done that very well, and since you have yet to respond to what she has to say, much less to provide any, you know, evidence to back your claim up, I’d say that one’s been put to bed, regardless of whether you ignore it or not.

As to judicial nominees: I love how you say “there were a couple of them that Republicans did not bring up for a vote when they controlled the Senate.” Try 60 Clinton nominees that got no hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee at all. That’s effectively the same thing as a filibuster, except that it only takes 11 determined senators to pull it off instead of sixty. Further, the Democratic Senate between 2001 and 2002 approved 124 of President Bush’s nominees, which is a helluva lot faster than the Republican Senate moved for President Clinton’s nominees,as the Christian Science Monitor reported in 2003.

Clinton’s nominees saw more obstruction from the Republicans than Bush’s nominees ever saw from the Democrats—and President Clinton even held to the tradition of talking to the (Republican) head of the Senate Judiciary Committee to see how they felt about particular nominees. Plenty of them got stuck in committee, and the ones that made it out for an up-or-down vote saw far less confirmation than the ones under the Republican-controlled Senate did between 1995 and 2000.

The facts are there, Renob. They’re inconvenient facts for you, which is why I don’t expect you to pay attention to them. And I also don’t expect you to provide information to back up your arguments, because there isn’t any. You’re just repeating the lies and obfuscations that the conservatives want you to. And why not? The truth isn’t helping your argument, anyway.

31

[QUOTE=Renob]
Exactly. Democrats play the partisan game, too. That’s my point. I’m trying to point out that Democrats share plenty of the blame for the breakdown of bipartisanship.
[/QUOTE]

This is sad. You’re like a befuddled teacher who comes across a fight between Muscles McGurk, the school bully, and Fauntleroy Pince-Nez III, the school wimp, and says, “I don’t care who started the fight, you’re both fighting and you’re both going to the principal!” when it’s obvious to all that Fauntleroy’s total contribution to starting the fight had been in not running away fast enough. Your notion that the Dems were responsible for the lack of bipartisanship in any significant way simply flies in the face of common sense. In their weak position, the Dems HAD to get bipartisan support from the Pubbies to get any legislation passed, whereas the Pubbies could just roll over the Dems. Which they often did.

32

[QUOTE=Chance the Gardener]
As to judicial nominees: I love how you say “there were a couple of them that Republicans did not bring up for a vote when they controlled the Senate.” Try 60 Clinton nominees that got no hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee at all.
[/quote]

Look behind the numbers. Most of those folks’ nominations expired when Clinton left office. That is a common occurence. It happened during the Bush I term. When he left office in 1993 there were 54 judicial nominees in a similar predicament.

[quote]
That’s effectively the same thing as a filibuster, except that it only takes 11 determined senators to pull it off instead of sixty. Further, the Democratic Senate between 2001 and 2002 approved 124 of President Bush’s nominees, which is a helluva lot faster than the Republican Senate moved for President Clinton’s nominees,as the Christian Science Monitor reported in 2003.
Not quite. A filibuster is a minority of Senators opposing what the majority wants. When the majority of Senators oppose a nominee, then that is much different. When the GOP controlled the Senate under Clinton and stopped a few of his nominees, that was because the majority of the Senate did not want to move them.

Guess why? Because the GOP controlled the Senate. The GOP controlled the nominations process. That’s a perk that comes with being in the majority. The Democrats, however, rewrote the rules to say that the minority party should have the authority to stop judges. That is unprecedented.

If you want facts, here’s a source (admitedly biased) that gives you all the info you need: http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Judges121603SD.pdf

33

[QUOTE=Renob]
The Democrats, however, rewrote the rules…
[/QUOTE]
When was that?

34

[QUOTE=Squink]
When was that?
[/QUOTE]

I was speaking metaphorically. To be literal, the Democrats engaged in an unprecedented use of the filibuster to block the President’s judicial nominees.

Happy?

35

Not yet. Getting happier, lately. Less miserable.

Your entire case for your allegation of bi-partisan civility on the part of the Pubbies seems to rest on the No Child and Patriot legislation. Shirley, if a pattern of Pubbie civility is as apparent as you seem to think, you would have quite a few more, no? Well, what are they?

As to judges. Would you contest the description that the candidates advanced for these positions were reliably conservative, that they clearly represented a political viewpoint that the Administration sought to impose on the Judiciary? Were there no competent moderates available? Do you not agree that the power of the Bench is such that the best candidates are those who display no political slant or bias? And wouldn’t you agree that an Admin with a clear intent to bi-partisan comity would have selected them, rather than candidates who seem to be cast in the belligerantly conservative mode of Alito and Thomas, his jurisprudential bitch? “In your face, sucker!” is not an attitude conducive to bi-partisan civility.

I admit I was fooled too. I saw the 2000 election as center-right against center-left, no big shakes. My choice was clear, being on the conservative wing of the extreme left. First time I worred was right after the election, when The Leader actually lost the popular vote, and began strutting about like he had won a landslide avalanche of a mandate. I expected some kind of conciliartory speech committing him to goven from the center and respect the wishes of the majority of people who voted against him. I’m still waiting.

36

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Your entire case for your allegation of bi-partisan civility on the part of the Pubbies seems to rest on the No Child and Patriot legislation. Shirley, if a pattern of Pubbie civility is as apparent as you seem to think, you would have quite a few more, no? Well, what are they?
[/quote]

I’m not saying the Bush administration is a model of bipartisanship. I am saying that, contrary to what some on here say, Bush has engaged in some bipartisan efforts. Two of those efforts are now two of the things he is most criticized for, interestingly enough.

I’ll be the first to admit that Bush is partisan and that there is a lack of bipartisan cooperation in DC. Much of this is due to Bush. A lot is also due to Democrats.

Those two things are all I’m trying to illustrate.

Every administration (Republican and Democrat alike) put judges on the bench that reflects that administration’s ideology. Bush should not be criticized because he does the same.

37

Doesn’t follow. If the Dems apply partisan ideological tests to judicial nominees, they ought be criticized. The sentence reads different if you put Bush in place, but its validity doesn’t change. If the Dems start playing soccer with puppies for soccerballs, I will express my dismay. If the Bushiviks want to do it tomorrow, it doesn’t matter that the Dems did it yesterday.

38

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Doesn’t follow. If the Dems apply partisan ideological tests to judicial nominees, they ought be criticized. The sentence reads different if you put Bush in place, but its validity doesn’t change. If the Dems start playing soccer with puppies for soccerballs, I will express my dismay. If the Bushiviks want to do it tomorrow, it doesn’t matter that the Dems did it yesterday.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t necessarily see ideological judges as a bad thing. Part of the president’s duty is to appoint judges. Naturally, he’ll appoint judges whose judicial philosophy he agrees with. That has always been the case and, in general, our system works. Sure, we get a few extreme judges every now and then, but on the whole the liberal judges and the conservative judges do a good job and balance each other out.

39

The best way to maintain balance is to shove the most reliably ideologues down the other teams throat? To maintain balance it is best to disrupt balance?

40

Am I the only one who finds it amusing that Renob is accusing the lefties of “rewriting history” even as he’s doing so?

[QUOTE=Renob]
Look at the No Child Left Behind Act. When Bush first proposed it, it didn’t look much like the bill that became law. There was a variety of school choice provisions that were stripped out, which were really the main reforms that Bush was pushing for. The NCLB Act that emerged from Congress was, in large part, the child of Ted Kennedy.
[/quote]

Let’s ask Senator Kennedy, then: