This Washington Post story on the Senate vote in favor of a tax cut and Bush’s victory, reminds me of something that may be played out in the next year and a half: I believe there is a distinct chance that the President’s opponents (not excluding the elite-liberal media) will go after him for being heavy handed, if not dictatorial in the way he deals with Congress. In fact, this President has been extraordinarily effective in getting what he wants. He sticks to his guns and uses every ounce of authority and power that he has to get his way. In all the ordinary way students of politics understand these matters, this President will go down as effective (compare that, for example, to Carter who had a large majority in Congress, and could do nothing). Yet, because of this, his opponents will go after him for being too powerful, too pushy. I believe this mode has started, I glimpsed some of this on TV news last night. Needless to say, I am glad that Senator Voinovich came aboard at the last minute (the tit-for-tat is explained in the article).
I find it interesting that $20 billion in state aid had to be added to the bill to get Voinovich’s approval. His main concern with the tax cut has been the deficit. If he’s so concerned about the deficit, why does he demand higher spending?
I was wondering who who make the point about Voinovich first. Preston’s right. It does seem a bit contradictory, doesn’t it? Politics is fun, isn’t it. Nothing like fun with consequences...