Jewish World Review Feb. 27, 2006 / 29 Shevat, 5766

Why so long since a member of Congress was elected president?

By Peter A. Brown

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | 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.