Technique as indicator of efficacy

[CARLHAYDEN]

A number of comentators have remarked on the recent use of extreme vitroil (name calling, insults, etc.) by Bush with respect to foes of the Kennedy amnesty bill.

So, why the vitroil?

Well, as a noted trial lawyer once noted when addressing a law school class on trial techniques, "When you're strong on the facts, hammer away at the facts, and when you're strong on the law, hammer away at the law.  When you're not strong on either, hammer away at the table."

Well, the Bush administration has largely ignored the substance of the bill (facts) and also largely ignored a comparison of this bill with current legislation (it reduces border security) and has instead engaged in ad hominen attacks.

Also, when a President believes that he is likely to win a legislative contest over a piece of legislation where the opposition is very unhappy, he (irrespective of party) is typically pretends to be magnanimous, makes a speech were he states he "understands" and "sympathises" with the concerns of the opposition, and then typically offers some sop (a commission to be appointed to investigate the "concerns").

When a President believes that a critical piece of legislation may or may not pass Congress, what typically is done is to in effect bribe members of Congress.  If they want a subsidy or protection for a particular industry critical to their state, they get it.  If they want a particulr construction project (dam, roads, airports, etc.) to be funded by the federal government, they get it.

When a President feels that he has the public behind him and Congress is being uncooperative, he makes an address to the nation (as Reagan did) uring the public to contact (and goose) Congress.

So, why the vitroil directed at those who have historically been among his strongest supporters?

Well, certainly some of it is personal (a coujple of months ago I posted about Bush's personal background on this issue) but, a large part of it is, it seems to me, sheer frustration.