It's been almost a half century since a member of Congress was elected president,
although not for any lack of trying.
The conventional wisdom is that John F. Kennedy in 1960 was the last one because voters
perceive a lack of executive experience needed to govern among congressional White House
aspirants.
That may be the case, but there is another possible explanation worth considering which
may be at work as public opinion begins to shift on President Bush's electronic surveillance
program and could be in the mix depending on how the port security issue plays out:
Simply put, outside the Beltway, Congress — and we are talking about members of both
parties — is seen as a bunch of unethical windbags who talk, accomplish very little and reflect
parochial, rather than national, interests.
Hence, those who inhabit those halls begin with a public perception that makes it very
difficult to see them as strong and decisive, which is the most important goal of every
campaign for the Oval Office.
Perhaps that explains the storm of criticism from Capitol Hill of the Bush
administration's approval of a deal that would allow a Dubai company to operate six U.S. ports.
Lawmakers of both parties have sought to position themselves as more concerned about potential
national security risks than the president.
When the electronic surveillance story months ago, the smart money predicted it would
drive down George W. Bush's poll numbers even further. And indeed that occurred, although his
job approval has bottomed in the low 40s, not a great place for a politician to be.
Yet, there are signs that public opinion about Bush's decision to establish the
program seems to be gradually shifting the White House way, even as his overall standing with
the American people remains unchanged.
An AP-Ipsos poll in February found the country basically evenly split on the issue,
whereas in January Americans disapproved of it by a 14-point margin.
Probably not coincidentally, the chances of full congressional hearings into the
surveillance program appear waning while it is worth remembering that despite the president's
low ratings, his numbers are better than those for Congress.
The White House clearly understands all this and gets high marks for moving things
its way. It has unleashed an offensive to paint the electronic surveillance program as more
than just a matter of national security.
Bush &Co. believe that when most Americans see the program as the president acting to deal
with a threat to their life and limb as opposed to critics talking about the need to protect
civil liberties, the issue goes their way.
To be sure, this is not a strictly partisan issue. There are many Republicans in
Congress complaining about the president abusing his power in setting up the domestic wiretap
program, which he authorized shortly after the 9/11 attacks.
That may well be the case, but there is a pattern here that is worth considering,
especially by those who want to emulate JFK.
Look at the Patriot Act, which was passed with bipartisan support following 9/11, but
became a partisan issue during the 2004 Democratic presidential contest. Virtually all the
Democratic candidates assailed it in one way or another for endangering Americans' civil
liberties because that view was popular among primary voters.
But during that general election campaign Bush stumped for its renewal and John Kerry
dropped the issue, Kerry understood that among the mass of voters the notion of a president
protecting national security overrides most objections.
Then, in December 2005, congressional Democrats and a few Republicans were able to stall
its renewal, forcing the president to begin another public relations offensive on the issue.
Again, it worked and Congress is about to approve a Patriot Act reauthorization without
any major changes White House opposed. "Too many Democrats have folded" so the president "can't
use this issue to paint them as 'soft' on terrorism," acknowledged Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
It's still not completely clear how the electronic surveillance issue or the port
security issues will play out. But, as we begin the foreplay of the 2008 presidential mating
ritual, all concerned might want to think about why it has been so long since one of their own
has moved their office down Pennsylvania Avenue.
