Terry Heath

Brent Colton is a retired CIA operations officer now in the employ of the Creighton Corporation, a privately owned think tank that advocates various opinions on world issues, but it’s his clandestine job to solve the dirty problems for their private clients for a million dollar fee with no questions asked. When recovering stolen technology from a Vietnamese industrialist, Colton obtains evidence that he secretly partnered with a U.S. Senatorto rig the recent presidential election and elect him to the nation’s highest office.

GEORGE W. BUSH'S SECOND TERM CONSENSUS: ALREADY A LAME DUCK?
by Terry Heath, 2005

Terry Heath] On January 20th, 2005, much to the surprise of millions of American voters and to many in his own party; George W. Bush took the oath of office for a second term as president. Bush had lofty hopes for a successful second term and creating his own unique legacy as this nation's forty-third chief executive but he is already encountering problems with his domestic and foreign agenda as the spectre of being labeled a "Lame Duck" president who can't get anything done has arisen from critics on both sides of the political aisle. The dilemma for this incumbent as we progress through the summer of 2005 is that he is starting to have many of the same troubles that have plagued other two-term chief executives from the day they took that second oath. Now is the time for Bush to change that perception of his presidency before Congress and the public deem him to be irrelevant and he becomes politically ineffective.

The 22rd Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1951 in lieu of Franklin Roosevelt being elected four times and it specifies that a president can only serve two full terms as chief executive. Because of that time limit Congress has attempted to make that individual a lame duck as soon as he begins that second term because the legislators presume they have nothing to fear because they know that this leader will eventually be out of office. And every two-term president since that amendment has passed has run into trouble as they try to do too much to counter this perceived politically weakened status.

All two-term presidents gladly take that second oath with lofty aspirations of enacting legislation that will ensure their legacy for generations to come. But they attempt a too ambitious agenda in that second term when the country is demanding a smooth continuance of normalcy that occurred during that incumbent's first four years. For those most recent two- term leaders it's usually that overzealous ambition that leads to problems during their final four years in office. Recent examples of termed out presidents include:

Bill Clinton: Impeached in the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal but survives being removed from office although it derails his healthcare reform.

Ronald Reagan: Enmeshed in the Iran/Contra scandal that wastes two years of his presidency. Richard Nixon: Watergate scandal erupts at the beginning of his second term. It leads to his resignation twenty months into that term.

Dwight Eisenhower: Suffers a minor stroke just months after being re-elected that prevents him from fully leading the nation for one year. The U-2 spy plane incident with the Soviet Union in 1960 prevents the two countries from agreeing to a reduction in military weapons treaty that helps Democrat John Kennedy win in 1960. He feels so badly in his final months in office over his perceived failure of negotiating with the Soviets that he contemplates resignation.

Our current president is starting to have many of the same troubles that plagued these recent two-term chief executives. Has Bush lost touch with the voters of America as he presumes he can govern with some type of mandate he believed he inherited from his second-term victory? Or are his advisors getting arrogant with the power they've enjoyed these past five years and are misleading Bush on what the American citizens want from their commander in chief? The American public must wonder if Bush leads with his own decisions on policy matters or does he make a choice from a consensus provided to him by his self- promoting advisors.

President Bush's economic legislation is currently stalled in Congress, despite the heavy promotion since January's second inauguration of his urging in reforming Social Security, among other domestic legislation his administration has been promoting. His nomination to be our ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, has been receiving severe criticism by Democrats and no scheduled vote for his confirmation has yet to be submitted to the Senate. And Bush's most trusted political advisor, Karl Rove, is embroiled in a political scandal as an independent prosecutor is investigating who was the leak of the name of a female CIA operative that was the wife of a critic of the administration's war policy in Iraq and what part Rove allegedly played in it.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's recent announcement of retirement from the high court after serving twenty-four years there has given the president a unique opportunity to reverse his present course of negative public opinion and put a positive spin on his administration. He has stated that he intends to nominate Federal Court of Appeals Judge John G. Roberts to replace O'Connor on the Supreme Court bench. Can Bush's selection of Roberts as his nominee to the Supreme Court restore his own credibility and prestige as our nation's leader?

Who is Judge Roberts and how can he help this president? He's a graduate of Harvard University and Harvard Law School. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, served as Deputy Solicitor General in the George H.W. Bush administration and was a successful attorney in private practice for a number of years before being appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit in 2003. And he's successfully argued 25 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and appears to be a brilliant lawyer who gets along with those on all sides of the political spectrum.

Judge Roberts seems to have a perfect resume with his government work and the time he was a lawyer in private practice and appears he would be an excellent Supreme Court Associate Justice when you consider that the only criticism so far received from the extreme left on his nomination is that he seems to be too nice of a guy! Bush needs to capitalize on this good will for his own self-serving interests.

The president's choice appears to be a wise selection as Roberts seems to be the safe bet at this time. He's a known conservative who should get support on the right yet has only been on the appeals bench for two years so has an insignificant paper trail of writings on cases that those on the left can cite for their claim of rejecting his nomination. Yet such a choice on an unknown factor could backfire on a president. One must recall that Bush's own father, George Herbert Walker Bush, selected David Souter as an Associate Justice in 1992 with a minimal paper trail and conservatives consider him to be a disappointment over his last decade of voting and judicial writings.

Bush's choice must go through confirmation without rancor or controversy for the sake of the president's own current credibility and leadership capabilities and he must win this for his own political survival. Because if the nomination of Roberts is unsuccessful or if the debate and vote is controversial and acrimonious then the minority members of the Democratic Party may get emboldened and contest the president on all future legislation and nominations as we head toward the 2006 mid-term elections and the gradual loss of power and influence that Bush will have to contend with as his term winds down.

The President has boasted that he expects to get four selections of Supreme Court justices during his tenure in office. By going safe this first time out and getting this nomination to go through controversy free then it should be easier when and if those additional opportunities arise. Bush must take positive advantage of the good will this nomination should generate to turn around the recent downturn of his own popularity. Then he can get back on track with his own agenda and legislation that he wants to promote for his legacy. But no matter what happens we've got to realize that the American public is stuck with Mr. Bush and he with us for the next three and a half years. We still must give him the benefit of the doubt in the decisions he must make for the sake of the country's survival.

Terry Heath

California

E-Mail readermail@terryheathbooks.com