Editor's Note:
The big question in the 2004 Presidential Election year is whether G.W.
Bush will follow in his father's footsteps and because the second Bush
to be defeated by a bad economy and a war.
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) is strongly criticizing Congress, saying it
gave President Bush too much latitude in conducting foreign policy after the
Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Hagel voiced his disapproval Monday in a speech at the Gallup
Organization World Conference in Omaha.
"When the security of this nation is threatened, Congress and the
American people give the president great latitude," he said. "We probably have
given this president more flexibility, more latitude, more range,
unquestioned, than any president since Franklin Roosevelt -- probably too much. The
Congress, in my opinion, really abrogated much of its responsibility."
Hagel, a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, voted last
year to give the president the authority to attack Iraq but has frequently
criticized Bush's execution of the war. Hagel has been especially
critical of the lack of allies and United Nations support.
" Most people in other countries are too young to remember the good done
by the United States in World War II and the Korean War, he said. "The
great reservoir of pro-American good will that has existed in the world since
World War II . . . that reservoir is now down very low."
Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran, compared the United States' lack of
international support in the Iraq war with what happened in Southeast
Asia.
"The one great mistake that America made in those 58 years [since World
War II] . . . was we tried to do something alone. That was Vietnam,"
Hagel said.
Hagel is not alone within the ranks of the G.O.P, as this recent account
by Washington Post reporters Juliet Eilperien and David Broder illustrates.
o
COLUMBUS JUNCTION, Iowa -- Dave Boyd, sipping a Busch Light in his lawn
chair as Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) approached, was troubled. As a
production operator at an auto interiors shop in Iowa City, he worried about the
Bush administration's bid to revamp the nation's overtime rules.
"I think it would cut into our income quite a bit," Boyd said of the
plan, which would make some middle-income workers ineligible for overtime pay.
"I voted against it," replied Leach, who was attending the town's
annual Columbus Day parade. "The theory of those who advocate it is that it
gives management more flexibility." But "lots of people would be affected by
it" negatively.
Until recently, few Republican lawmakers would be so quick to distance
themselves from President Bush. But the president's approval ratings
have fallen sharply since April, the nation's job growth remains sluggish and
large numbers of Americans feel the nation is putting too much money --
and not enough wise planning -- into Iraq.
Although many Republicans are optimistic that Bush will win reelection
next year, all nonretiring House members (and a third of senators) have
their own 2004 reelection campaigns to worry about.
Some GOP incumbents -- especially those in the several dozen House
districts that Democrat Al Gore carried or nearly won in 2000 -- are
showing an increasing willingness to vote against key White House
initiatives and to reassure constituents that they think and act
independently of the president.
Leach was among 21 Republicans who joined most Democrats when the House
voted 221 to 203 to bar the administration from implementing the
overtime revisions.
Scores of Republicans bucked the White House by voting to overturn a
Federal Communications Commission rule making media mergers easier, and
several also voted, against Bush's wishes, to allow the importation of
prescription drugs from Canada and other countries.
Such erosion of GOP solidarity was rarely seen when Bush's approval
ratings were higher, but it hardly signals a deep or permanent break
between the White House and congressional GOP moderates.
Republican lawmakers from swing districts say that Bush generally
remains popular with their constituents, and that jobs, not Iraq, are number one
on voters' minds.
Many GOP House members are taking a cautious line: focusing on the
possibility that Bush can't help them at reelection time, yet continuing
to support him as much as possible.
Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. (R-Fla.) said he foresees an easier time for Bush
next year in the Sunshine State, site of the dramatic 2000 election
recount. "I don't think Bush is going to find Florida as close as it was
last time," Shaw said. "I think Jewish voters may break more for the
president" because of his strong support of Israel.
However, Shaw noted, "Drugs for seniors is a huge issue." Shaw has
voted twice to allow importation of Canadian drugs despite the White House's
objections.
Rep. Rob Simmons (R-Conn.) hails from a district that Gore carried in
2000. He said he has not heard a lot of complaints about Iraq or the $87
billion that Bush wants to spend there and in Afghanistan, and he feels
confident about his own reelection prospects.
The district has the lowest unemployment of any in Connecticut,
in part because of two huge Indian gambling casinos that employ 40,000
people.
This month, Simmons, who is on the Armed Services Committee, announced a
$10 billion, multiyear contract for submarine construction at Electric
Boat in his district. "For the first time in years, EB is hiring, not firing," he said.
Nonetheless, Simmons is guarded about Bush's prospects, saying that
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) will generate a big Democratic vote with
his reelection campaign and that it is possible that Sen. Joseph I.
Lieberman (D-Conn.) -- the 2000 vice presidential nominee -- will be on the
presidential ticket again.
"I operate off a base of 23 percent Republicans, so I am running every
day," he said. "It may be the president won't take the district, but I
will."
Simmons's neighbor, Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), has a more
skeptical view of Bush's standing. Shays said some constituents are beginning to
lose confidence in the president, whom they have traditionally seen as a
forthright man with a strong sense of mission.
"There's a question mark -- he either doesn't know or he doesn't want
to share," Shays said. "Both of those are hurting him badly."
Between the war and the faltering economy in recent months, Shays said,
"it wasn't a great time, and the way he has handled it has made it even
worse."
In most instances, the jobs picture -- and especially the loss of U.S.
jobs to China (and to Mexico, to a lesser extent) -- was the first and main
issue raised by these Republican lawmakers in recent interviews.
The bluntest was Rep. Phil Gingrey, a freshman from Georgia. "This is a
patriotic district, and people support the president on what he is doing
in Iraq," Gingrey said. "But they are upset by the loss of jobs. I think
[Secretary of Commerce Donald L.] Evans and the administration are
finally getting it, that we are in an economic war with China and if we lose
that war, winning in Iraq is not going to mean that much."
Gingrey recently co-sponsored a bill to threaten the Chinese with
tariffs on their goods coming into the United States.
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) also said that loss of manufacturing jobs
"is the first thing [constituents] bring up. A lot of small manufacturers
say they are being hurt by China's manipulation of exchange rates. I've
called on the administration to take strong action against that."
Rep. Mark S. Kirk (R-Ill.), a moderate from the Chicago suburbs, is
favored to win reelection and is closely allied with the president. But his
constituents remain worried about the shaky financial shape of United
Airlines and Motorola, two key employers.
"The job thing has bite," Kirk said. His constituents "would like to
hear more about it, and they would like to have the president talk more about
it. You can't talk about it enough."
Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio), a fellow Midwesterner, is also
worried. "We have a lot of machine shop owners, first- and second-generation
Americans, and they are concerned," he said. "They see some signs of the
economy improving, but they see a lot of tool-and-die trade going to
China. They're concerned that in a few years, they will be servicing the
equipment, not making it."
Some Republicans in swing districts said they believed Bush had gained
ground compared with where he was in 2000. Freshman Rep. Jim Gerlach's
Pennsylvania district narrowly favored Gore three years ago. Now,
Gerlach said, Bush is making inroads.
"I think he'll be better in some suburban areas," Gerlach said. "That
will be helpful to me."
Rep. Mike Ferguson (N.J.), another northeastern Republican from a swing
district, said Bush "comes across as a strong and decisive leader.
That's the thing people have come to like and respect about President Bush."
But Shays said some Republicans might be hurt by their ties to the
president if the situation in Iraq and the nation's economic outlook
worsen. "For people like me who are such strong supporters of the president,
when the president is making mistakes and you're defending him, it impacts
you," he said. "Conversely, when he's doing well, it benefits you."
Leach faced a tough reelection fight last year, and is keenly aware of
voters' unease. He has watched his district's manufacturing base erode
and the conflict in Iraq worsen.
"America as a 'making society' is in jeopardy," Leach said. "It's very
alarming what's happening."
Even some local Republican officials worry about the president's
reelection prospects.
"For Bush to get reelected, two things have to happen: The economy has
to improve quite a bit, or Iraq has to be concluded successfully," said Jim
Howell, GOP chairman for Louisa County. "If both of those things are in
the tank, he'll have a rough road."
Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.) said the Iraq funding also troubles his
constituents. "There's no question about supporting the troops," he
said, "but I do get questions about the money on top of that. And people say
we ought to be loaning them the money, because they have the oil revenues."
Juliet Eilperin and David S. Broder are Washington Post staff writers.
This story is re-published courtesy of 'Truthout'.
|
