(Is this the same Robert Novak from CNN? Because he sounds down right cynical of Bush in this.)
By Robert D. Novak
Monday, February 27, 2006; Page A15
It was no surprise that Sen. Charles Schumer, a fiercely partisan Democrat always hunting for political advantage, ignited the furor over management of America's ports. But why did congressional leaders of George W. Bush's own party join the attack?
A second-term president hovering around 40 percent in popular approval ratings cannot expect full support on sensitive issues, even from his own party. But Bush contributed to the lack of Republican backing with faulty White House outreach to Capitol Hill, followed by his injudicious veto threat against still-undefined legislation.
Beyond the Bush political operation's shortcomings, deeper problems are reflected by overwhelming public opposition to a company owned by the government of a close Arab ally operating U.S. ports. Polls suggest the darker side of the American mind: isolationist, protectionist, nativist and xenophobic. Bush's ceaseless efforts to rouse his countrymen to support the war against terrorism may have unleashed the dogs of anti-Arab prejudice....
(clip)
...When the Democrats first opened fire, presidential counselor Dan Bartlett was alerted by congressional Republicans to stormy waters ahead and urged to do something about it.
Bartlett replied in the imperial style of this presidency by suggesting he hoped Republicans could support the deal, but if they could not, it just would be too bad. That was followed by the president's rare session with reporters aboard Air Force One in which he threatened a veto....
(more at link below)
<
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/26/AR2006022601406.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns>
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
