As noted in the Frist and 9/11 posts today, the level of Senate partisanship is at an all time high and Senator Daschle is one of the reasons. For more evidence, note this excerpt from David Frum's book, which notes how Daschle attacked President Bush and undermined the post-9/11 bipartisanship the President was attempting to promote through breakfast meetings with Congressional leaders:
I don’t know whether Daschle ever offered any personal apology for the secondhand insult. The purpose of the breakfast meetings was to draw the leaders of Congress closer to Bush. Did Daschle fear being pulled too close? Was he looking for some way to break Bush’s embrace? Did he hope by offending Bush to be disinvited from the breakfasts — and thus (in his own mind, at least) be relieved from any duty to support the president in time of war? A friend of mine put this last question to Daschle directly — and the only reply the majority leader made was an enigmatic smile. Whether Daschle intended it or not, relations between the men never recovered. The leadership breakfasts dwindled away.
What Daschle is actually doing and has done in Washington needs to be a focus for the Argus Leader if they want voters to make an informed choice in November 2004, as the editor keeps promoting. If Senator Daschle is a primary source of the "rancid partisanship" in Washington, as Morton Kondracke calls it, shouldn't the voters be aware of it?
Comments