Bye Bye Bayh

I didn’t count the number of articles and editorials this week that bemoaned Evan Bayh’s decision not to run for reelection but there were a lot of them. Bayh is another of a growing number of members of Congress who have decided for various reasons that now is a good time to exit the public stage. Bayh’s reason was the growing partisanship in Congress. Or so he said.

"There is too much partisanship and not enough progress -- too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving," Bayh said. "Even at a time of enormous challenge, the people's business is not being done."

Interesting comments from the man who voted against the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice to be George Bush’s Secretary of State. Only 13 other Democrat senators agreed with him.

Bayh was one of only 22 senators – all of them Democrats (including Barack Obama) – who voted against the confirmation of John Roberts, Bush 43’s nominee for Chief Justice.

Bayh joined 40 Democrat senators (including Obama) to vote against the confirmation of Sam Alito’s nomination by George Bush to the Supreme Court after hearings that were so partisan Martha Alito left the hearing chamber in tears.

Like John Kerry (who claimed he voted against the Iraq war after he voted for it), Bayh co-sponsored the war resolution and then voted against the surge, the same surge that which Harry Reid said was pointless because the war was lost. (That was before it worked. Now Reid points to the surge as Obama's Iraq strategy.)

Last year’s bitterly divisive senate vote on healthcare reform got Bayh’s vote.

Bayh, like every senator ought to vote his conscience and represent his constituents, and hopefully he has. But his public persona as a moderate doesn’t seem to be borne out in his voting record. “I don’t see him as Mr. Bipartisan,” one GOP aide was reported in this week’s news to have said of Bayh.

Washington is a frustrating place to be just now. Obama’s signature domestic achievement, healthcare “reform” is stalled, not for a lack of clout but for a lack of leadership. And the American people are solidly against it, not because Obama hasn’t explained it to them in one-syllable words, but because they’re better informed about the shenanigans in Washington than ever before and have read enough in the news to know Obamacare is going to change their healthcare, which they happen to like just as it is, thank you very much.

A CNN poll this week reported that 52% of those polled believed Obama didn’t deserve a second term as president. CNN, no shill for the right wing of the political spectrum, released the poll with headlines equivalent to the sinking of the Titanic: “Shock” it trumpeted. Shock? What’s shocking about it except that it once again shows how woefully out of touch the political class is with American society.

Late in the week, Rasmussen released a poll showing that almost 90% of mainstream voters view the political situation in Washington as busted, while 73% of the political class disagree, and therein lies much of the “partisanship” problem that has Evan Bayh wringing his hands and thinking about the tough reelection he was facing before cashing in his chips.

When Ronald Reagan was president I remember listening to some talking head lamenting that Republicans knew how to govern but didn’t know how to rule. Hmm, seems to me that we fought a war about that “ruling” thing a couple hundred years ago. Yet, (my opinion) the guy in the White House and the majority in Congress still can’t understand the difference between governing and ruling, given the way they act about legislation. When every poll tells them that they've lost their constituents and yet they're still trying to ram through unpopular command-and-control healthcare and resorting to procedural trickery like reconciliation to subvert the will of the voters, they've gone to ruling, not governing. And Americans don’t want to be ruled.

What I believe we’re seeing is not the dysfunctional partisanship that Evan Bayh bemoans but rather a fundamental difference in the proper role of government. As pollster Scott Rasmussen himself has said: “the gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and the politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century.”

An Open Letter to the President

Three snow storms have now dumped 55 inches on Washington D.C. in recent days -- an inconvenient truth for Al Gore -- paralyzing a government whose numerous "no work" days include the President's Day congressional recess coming next week. So what's a president to do during a lull that gives his opponents more time for pot shots at his stalled domestic policy centerpiece -- healthcare reform? Call for a “bipartisan” summit of ideas, of course.

And that's what Obama did during the multi-hour run-up to last Sunday's Super Bowl Game. Somehow among the endless interviews with football greats and game day experts, the WH managed to insert a Katie Couric interview of the president, who said when the President's Day recess was over he was calling for a summit in which he would invite Republicans to palaver with Democrats, giving them an opportunity to introduce their ideas about healthcare reform. He will ask them "What do you guys have?" Huh? The same guys who were excluded from the process of closed door and late night meetings are now being asked to put forward their ideas -- I assume the same ones that have filled the news hole since Obama became president?.

Predictably, those from the right and even the center are calling this a stunt. How could the president not know where his opposition or the public stood on healthcare? It's dangerous and unfair to impute motives to a person's actions (consequences are far more defensible) but what could the president be thinking in calling for a summit of ideas? Could he (or his advisors) have been thinking about his declining poll numbers, which this week fell to a stunning 47% approval rating -- with less than a percentage point spread separating his disapproval rating? Or could he be thinking about the CNN/Opinion Research poll showing that Americans don't like the healthcare bills that have passed the House and Senate by a 20-point margin -- 58% to 38%? Or the Gallup poll showing that 60% of Americans disapprove of the president's handling of the issue? Or the polls showing that the Democrats could lose six or more Senate seats and most of their House majority in the mid-term elections? Or the intractable unemployment figures? Or the depressing housing foreclosures that were released this week?

The president hasn’t asked me to attend the summit or phoned for my advice. But I’ll give it to him anyway.

Mr. President, you’ve made at least three bone-headed mistakes since you moved into the White House, and now you’re paying for them.

First, you brought almost your entire campaign staff into your administration as advisors, cabinet members, and bureaucrats. Bad idea. Clinton did the same thing and learned that what makes a good campaigner makes a lousy governance advisor. When George Stephanopoulos high-fived him on national TV after a press announcement, Clinton knew it was time to replace his campaign buddies with experts – even if he didn’t like them (Think Warren Christopher). Carter, by contrast, held on to his coterie of sycophants and they helped sink him. You’re in danger of becoming a caricature of Carter. The campaign is over. Stop campaigning. And get rid of that crowd from Chicagoland.

Second, what in the world were you thinking when you turned over your major domestic agenda to the likes of Nancy Pelosi? Letting her shape the healthcare and energy bills essentially installed her as your Prime Minister. She is one aggressive woman – and I’m being polite. Pelosi was here before you showed up as a shave-tail Senator and she will likely be here long after you’re a bad memory. She’s may be as far left as you are but the difference is her electorate is too. Yours isn’t. You had better get the car keys away from the Valley Girl or else she is going to drive your aspirations to be a two-term president over the cliff.

Third, your penchant for “big fix” solutions defies understanding. Is it the inexperience that you and the Chicago gang bring to the federal lawmaking process, or your extraordinary ego, or both that causes you to believe you have to change the world in the first half of your presidency? Good
grief, man, you started with at least four years – enough time to make your mark in history. Maybe you’ll get eight. Why the rush? You don’t know or don’t care about the lessons of American political history. Even the great Henry Clay couldn’t get the Compromise of 1850 through in one bill. What made you think you could get cap and trade and healthcare through in comprehensive bills? Your “take it or leave it” approach to lawmaking has severely damaged your chances for bipartisanship. Now you have to resort to this opera bouffe called a summit of ideas to play-act bipartisanship. Have you noticed that even the moderates of your own party are deserting you?

Your failures reflect an ignorance of political leadership. Maybe you should have stayed in the Senate a few more years before taking off the training wheels, but you can take this to the bank: this country can only be led when there is a broad coalition supporting its leaders. You don’t have it. And right now, you act like to don’t get it. Letting Pelosi lead this country left assured that you’d lose the apolitical middle that you carried in order to get elected. No eloquent speeches are going to solve your problems right now. And your SOTU confession of culpability for not adequately explaining your reforms to the American people was laughable. The problem is that they do understand what you’re trying to do – and they don’t like it.

Keep in mind that your majority in both legislative chambers consists of members whose constituents were carried by John McCain in 2008. That ought to keep you awake at night.

Start governing. So far you haven’t.