What's this: Not cheering the Whitehouse -- WASHINGTON BOARD

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:32:27 03/30/02 Sat
Author: ejgreene
Author Host/IP: 12-237-181-32.client.attbi.com / 12.237.181.32
Subject: What's this: Not cheering the Whitehouse

Not dead. Politics not too interesting right now. However did find this amusing.

March 29, 2002

G.O.P. Lawmakers and White House Cite a Growing Rift
By RICHARD L. BERKE

WASHINGTON, March 28 � In the first sign of a major breach between President Bush and leading Republicans in Congress, many lawmakers complain that the White House is not sufficiently energetic in helping them in the November elections. But Mr. Bush's advisers contend, bitterly, that members of Congress have not appreciated his help and should be far more aggressive in defending the president.

The mounting tensions involve large and small differences, from policy disputes like Mr. Bush's failure to veto the campaign finance bill and to do more to win a seat on an appeals court for Judge Charles W. Pickering Sr., to concerns about the overall Republican party message.

Disenchantment with the White House was clear in interviews with J. Dennis Hastert, the House speaker, and Senator Trent Lott, the minority leader, who even as they insisted that relations were generally sound, went on to be unusually critical of the White House.

Mr. Hastert, who is known for his careful, placid manner and for never publicly chastising the White House, bristled when asked about administration worries that he and other Republicans in Congress did not do more to defend the White House in disputes about cooperation from Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force and Tom Ridge, the director of domestic security.

"One of the things the White House will find is that the nature of Congress is not to stand up and applaud every time the White House does something," Mr. Hastert said. "Do we need to send a birthday card every time?"

Mr. Hastert asserted that the White House bore some blame for not coordinating its message better with Congress, a task that he credited the Clinton administration with managing more skillfully.

"If they need us to say something, they need to communicate with us," Mr. Hastert said. "Democrats were good at that. They picked the story line every day. The Clinton White House was excellent at it. If we're going to do that, we ought to organize from the White House."

Mr. Lott agreed that Congress should not be blamed when the White House could not adequately convey its message. "They're big boys and they've got a lot bigger megaphone than I have," he said.

Mr. Lott was particularly exercised over the White House practice of picking its preferred candidates in some Republican Senate primaries. He noted that the White House support of Richard J. Riordan in the California primary for governor backfired when Mr. Riordan lost to Bill Simon Jr. He said he was worried about Tennessee, where the White House has quietly taken steps to help former Gov. Lamar Alexander over Representative Ed Bryant.

"If they try to make one candidate the anointed one, that can get you in trouble," Mr. Lott said. "It could backfire on them like it did in California. In states where you've got more than one credible candidate, they need to be careful. Eventually, you keep piling up those negative chits, and it gets to be a problem."

The comments are particularly revealing because the Republicans still maintain a generally harmonious public front and are hesitant to criticize Mr. Bush because, with his enormous wartime popularity, his fund-raising and campaigning is vital to Republican hopes of keeping control of the House and winning back the Senate. The White House, in turn, can only be so critical because the president needs Congressional support for his legislative agenda.

Nicholas E. Calio, the White House legislative liaison, said Republican members of Congress were never satisfied that the president was doing enough. "If they had their way," he said, "we'd have the president standing in the elevators and at the steps waiting to talk to people on their way to vote." But, Mr. Calio added, "Our relationships with Congress in general are very positive with 535 members and some thousands of staff people, they are always going to be people who are unhappy."

Still, if the disenchantment on the two sides deepens, that could undermine the Republican Party's objective to have a united front for the elections. The strains are even deeper between the White House and Democrats in Congress, but that is not unusual.

"There is not a sense that the president feels that this institution is terribly important," said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut. "He's not building the kind of relationships with Congress that you need when the weather is bad. When the storms hit, you can find yourself very alone � even in your own party."

Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, played down the friction. "I don't think you can claim that there's a pattern," he said. "You have to look at each individual issue. The tension is more from an executive-legislative branch tension � not a partisan tension." Asked about feelings among Republican lawmakers with the White House, he said, "I have not sensed that there is dissatisfaction beyond just the typical nervousness during an election year."

Mr. Hastert also said sore feelings over institutional differences was bound to surface. "There are probably members of Congress saying, `Gee, I'm not appreciated by the White House,' " he said. "People need to take a deep breath and relax a little bit."

One member who is complaining is Representative Marge Roukema, a Republican from New Jersey, who said, "The president has reached out, but I haven't seen any evidence that the staff up there has been very responsive."

Several advisers to Mr. Bush expressed distress that Republicans in Congress were not doing enough to defend the president's efforts to expand his authority.

"There's been disappointment that Republicans haven't been out there both publicly and privately standing behind the White House's attempts to reinvigorate the prerogatives of the president, which were badly damaged during the Clinton years," said one close adviser to Mr. Bush. "That issue has been a big rub. You don't see Republicans out there strongly defending the Tom Ridge-shouldn't-testify decision. They don't take up the cause."

The adviser also said the White House was irritated that Republican lawmakers were not appreciative of how much Mr. Bush had traveled the country this year to raise money for the party.

A senior Republican Party official summed up the strains this way: "In the White House world, they would like all members of Congress to be White House deputy press secretaries and go on television routinely and deliver the administration's case." By contrast, he said, "Most of these senior members of Congress would sell their first born kid to protect their committee's jurisdiction."

White House officials also complain that Congress has tried to pull the president too far to the right on matters including education, the stimulus package and prescription drug benefits. But, one adviser acknowledged that that could be helpful, saying, "Bush benefits every time the Republicans in Congress try to push him to the right because it pushes him more firmly planted to the center."

One senior White House official, saying Congressional leaders are too quick to blame the president, said, "The House and the Senate don't always agree with what their message ought to be and it makes it difficult to get them on the same page."

Most recently, many Republicans expressed concern that Mr. Bush did not veto the campaign finance bill, which Democrats hailed as an important victory.

"Some people were hoping they'd be more aggressive," said Senator Don Nickles, the No. 2 Senate Republican.

"In a perfect world he would have vetoed it," Mr. Lott said.

Mr. Lott was more concerned that Mr. Bush did not do more to rescue one of his longtime friends, Judge Pickering. But he also blamed himself for not recognizing sooner that Mr. Pickering was in jeopardy.

"Well, it was late," he said of the White House response, "I could be criticized for that, too."

But one senior White House official countered, "If folks up on the Hill had done as much as we had, we would have been better off."

Mr. Nickles also criticized the White House on Judge Pickering, saying, "They came in a little late." But he said he was more concerned about Mr. Bush's decision to impose tariffs on imported steel, even more so than the president's willingness to sign the campaign finance measure.

On the campaign trail this week, seeming to anticipate their concerns, Mr. Bush moved to reassure Republicans. "The Senate races are very important to me," Mr. Bush said. "I want the Republicans to take control of the Senate and I want Denny Hastert to be speaker of the House." He added, "I'm going to campaign for like-minded people."

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Looks like they are.... -- Donk, 18:08:04 03/31/02 Sun