The Rise and Fall of the Kennedy and Bush Relationship

The Rise and Fall of the Kennedy and Bush Relationship

If a photographer could jump into what physicists call a worm hole, go back into time to the year 2000 and implant himself past the craggy face, broken blood capillaries and inside the occasionally alcohol-free brain of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), the picture could reveal that Ted was secretly sort of pleased, or at least satisfied, that Republican Texas Governor George W. Bush had narrowly won the campaign for the White House. Of course Kennedy vehemently supported Democratic presidential-nominee Vice President Al Gore, endorsing him early in January, 1999 and campaigning alongside him prior to the important Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. But with Gore an also-ran for residence at Hampton Court, Kennedy probably saw in Bush an acceptable alternative, someone he could still work with, a president he still could create significant tax-and-spend legislation with. For although Kennedy is a fierce partisan lion whose state gave Bush his largest loss in the 2000 election, the Senator is also someone who is both sociable and conducts influential business with elected officials from across the full political spectrum. This includes those diametrically opposed to his non-military, government-knows-best, help-those-with-excuses philosophy, such as Sen. Orin Hatch (R-UT). As the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Senate Committee, for decades Kennedy's efforts to increase dollars to the K-12 schools were limited by GOP ideology that called for the flat-out abolishment of the Department of Education, arguing that teaching children should remain a local issue, devoid of federal dollars and its intrusive paws into what they perceive as the rightful realm of the town school board.

Bush: The Self-proclaimed "Education President"
But then in 2000 came riding in to Washingtonland the man from Texas, fresh from the "Texas miracle" of educational achievement. The "compassionate conservative" candidate and president-elect announced from Mount Olympus he would relax the tighter-money aspect of GOP policy, encouraging a larger federal pipeline of federal dollars for programs heretofore mostly supported by Democratic Party members. Bush quickly broke from longstanding GOP policy to declare he wanted the federal government to become more involved in education with both dollars and direction; not to avoid the schools, but rather become an educating Republican president, to become more responsible for their progress. It likely gave Kennedy a heartwarming belief that additional federal taxpayer assistance to America's potential Neil or Louis Armstrongs was nigh to reality. Kennedy probably believed Bush was a different animal from other GOP presidents, one that would open the spigot of the federal tax-dollar pipeline into other government programs too, such as health care; to provide particular assistance to Americans of middle and lower income brackets. Indeed, many other Democrats probably had the same impression of Bush number two, too. And believing this was easy, for previously as Texas Governor, Bush demonstrated he could reach across the isle to accommodate opposing politicians. Kennedy has said he responded to Bush's views on education because he believed they represented a "very dramatic contrast to traditional Republican positions." But there were also family ties at work. "I had known his father, and I worked with him, particularly on the Americans with Disabilities Act," Kennedy said. He also recalled how the president's grandfather, Sen. Prescott Bush, (R-CT), agreed to speak to the legal society Kennedy headed as a student at the University of Virginia Law School.

 

Fast Friends for the Cameras
With the perception of a new more fiscally liberal GOP president, Kennedy quickly portrayed himself as having a new friend for public consumption, regardless of what these two men thought of each other privately. Kennedy and Bush led the public into thinking they were good pals; that each considered the other as loyal and trustworthy, like Sunny and Splash, the two Portuguese water dogs the Senator lives with and often takes to the office; and the Scottish terrier named Barney who is the president's friend. There are similarities between these two sons of wealthy political dynasties, each schooled among America's intellectual aristocracy, ingredients that could easily cement a real bond of friendship, not one just limited for public display. Both lived in New England and Massachusetts for much of their younger days and each had a history of drinking too much or too much celebrating; both as younger men were overshadowed by seemingly more accomplished siblings, but overcame that to become very significant government leaders, surpassing in stature most or all of their clan. And despite their privileged upbringing, both insist on a more welcoming earthly quality of sociability. One gets the impression either man would welcome a wrestling match. The President-elect it seems did much to spur this increasing public perception of friendship with Kennedy by a concerted White House advertised wooing campaign that began even before Bush grabbed the horse's reigns, with a New Year's Eve call to the Senator. The president-to-be found Kennedy on the Virgin Island of St. Croix, enjoying a holiday vacation. Rewriting the Past
Kennedy spokesman Jim Manley told EVOTE.COM, after six weeks of continually ignored requests for comment, the Virgin Island phone call was all business, not social. "They do not socialize now. There has not been a great change in their relationship," during the President's term. One person in proximity to Kennedy, who requested anonymity, told EVOTE.COM the two have never socialized together, regardless of the public perception of friendship between the two men starting with Bush's electoral victory. Then on Bush's just second full-working day as President, Kennedy attended an Oval Office meeting with a bipartisan senatorial group interested in education. The day following, Kennedy was invited to Education Secretary Rod Paige's swearing-in ceremony. And the day after that, the two budding camera buddies visited a local inner-city school. And this was just the beginning. On Feb. 1, Kennedy visited the White House twice: first to discuss the president's agenda for people with disabilities, and later with members of his family to eat popcorn and watch Thirteen Days, a film about the roles President John F. Kennedy and his Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy played in defusing the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. The two were public friends. There were other Bush invitations that Kennedy did not or could not accept, such as the chance to attend a White House St. Patrick's Day party and a ride on Air Force One to attend the Boston funeral of Rep. Joe Moakley, (D-MA). And on November 20, 2001 Bush renamed Washington, D.C.'s Justice Department Building to the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building, honoring the erstwhile Attorney General (along with the entire Kennedy clan) who served from 1961 to 1964.

 

Opposite Poles Attract Near Cameras
The acme of their public affection towards each other came a year after Bush took office on Jan. 8, 2002, when Kennedy and the President visited Boston, the Senator's turf and a rare venue for the president to visit. They came to herald the No Child Left Behind Act, legislation they created together, with each making compromises. The act promised the most significant change in the federal government's role in education since 1965. It called for more school accountability and uniform student testing, among other efforts. Procedures for closing or revamping incompetent schools were also established. The President promised Kennedy, one of the act's authors whose fingerprints are all over it, billions more federal dollars for education. They appeared behind a simple teacher's desk in front of more than 400 elected officials, teachers and students at the historic Boston Latin School, Boston's best public school and the nation's first, founded in 1635. It boasts such notable alumni as Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Kennedy's father and grandfather. The creation of the education bill, with Kennedy as Bush's key Democratic ally, became a symbol of inclusiveness between the two men and also generally between the Democrats and Republicans in the post-terrorist-attack America; a zeitgeist when America's politicians were trying to act and appear unified. But this same symbol of inclusiveness would soon become a symbol of divisiveness for the two men and the entire Congress. Warm-hearted Jocularity
At appearances in both Boston and Durham, N.H., Kennedy and Bush exchanged warm handshakes and slaps on the back. Several times they whispered jokes that left them convulsing in laughter. Nigh to the signing of the bill which passed congress weeks before on Dec. 18, 2001, Bush and Kennedy spoke of each other in ways that surprised political observers, fresh native corn for the cynics, with the President even engaging in badinage. On January 5 during a visit to Parkrose High School in Portland, Ore, Bush said "My friends in Midland, Texas, will not believe it when they turn on C-Span or one of those other channels, because I'm going to stand up and say to the nation: one, this is a good piece of legislation and, two, I want to thank Sen. Ted Kennedy for working on it with me. He's done a fine job." (Upon hearing this, one wonders how many Midlanders quickly swallowed a few doses of horse tranquilizer.) For years the GOP have used Kennedy as a symbol of bad government policy and as a tool to raise campaign funds.

 

Good Friends
Continuing with what sounded like college kids high on ecstasy, Kennedy in Boston effusively praised Bush as "personable, intelligent, feisty and engaged," with the president then returning the compliments. Kennedy also told the crowd of "the difference it has made" having Bush in the White House. Around this time Bush also hailed Kennedy as a political friend whose backing on the bill was vital: "I like Ted Kennedy. . . . If you have a legislative battle, you want him on your side. You don't want him against you." Along with the Boston event, the two traveled the country together to other venues on a victory tour to promote the education legislation. At Hamilton High School in Hamilton, OH, Bush said "He's (Kennedy) a fabulous United States senator. When he's against you, it's tough. When he's with you, it is a great experience." The president said people back in Crawford, Texas, near his ranch, "were somewhat shocked when I told them I actually like the fella." The audience gave Kennedy prolonged applause. Bush also told Kennedy, "Not only are you a good senator, you're a good man." The two instead could easily have been each other's public nemesis. But Kennedy at one time acknowledged that the president's courtesies created "a climate for wanting to find common ground." Quick Public Friends-Quick Public Enemies
But the common ground for public consumption between Kennedy and Bush must have been built on a volcano, for the hot lava of public hatred slowly started to seep upwards through the crust just a few weeks after Woodstock Boston -- because it was then Bush submitted his 2003 budget proposal which Kennedy said he believed was $90 million short of the President's commitments for the No Child Left Behind legislation. The liberal lion asked a roomful of education reporters, "Will the president fulfill his promise to the nation to truly leave no child behind?" Future presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), joined Kennedy in referring to the legislation as "unfunded" early in 2002. It was the beginning of the end of Bush and Kennedy cooperation. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), another author of the legislation, attacked the president's budget as the "No Money Left Behind for Education Budget." Some Democrats have complained Bush is only making sure the testing and accountability side of the bill is fully funded, the part he and the Republicans mostly supported. The Democrats say they seek more dollars to improve school quality, not just testing. The allegation that No Child Left Behind is an unfunded mandate is total nonsense, reportedly said Chester Finn of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. "Achieving proficiency might be expensive," Finn concedes, "but the actual activities mandated in NCLB are fully funded. At this point those activities are almost entirely testing." ''I would argue that we've more than met our commitment in funding,'' reportedly said Rep. John A. Boehner (R-OH), chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. And last year Secretary Paige put his rhetoric in the ring, referring to the teacher's union, the National Education Association, as a "terrorist organization" and one that uses "obstructionist scare tactics."

 

No Truth from Kennedy Aides
Speaking to EVOTE.COM by telephone during the time of the Republican National Convention, Manley said one of the strangest comments this reporter has ever personally heard from a political mouthpiece. When asked a question about the president's budget for No Child Left Behind, Manley said that if this reporter was interested in deciphering the truth, EVOTE.COM would have to talk to other people. That what this reporter was about to hear from Manley was Kennedy's "version" of events, not the whole truth. When asked why Manley was not willing to tell me the truth, he let out a loud, probably affected, laugh. In contrast to this particular conversation, Kennedy's staff has long been regarded to be among the most professional on Capitol Hill. And figuring out the truth as to whether Bush fully funded the legislation as promised is like trying to decipher Egypt's Rosetta Stone. Costs associated with the legislation are extremely complicated, as is the law itself, and both sides have spokesmen insisting the other side is misrepresenting funding for the bipartisan agreement. One could imagine there are very few persons who know, or could figure out, the truth if given the time; and they would have to be accountants, not fire-and-brimstone politicians determined to set an agenda and influence public opinion by vomiting lies and propaganda. But we do know that during Bush's presidency federal education funding has significantly increased, perhaps by $11 billion. We do not know if that is enough to cover the increased costs of the legislation. How often do school superintendents actually say they have enough money? After seven weeks of continual requests for comment, Bush's spokespersons refused to answer any EVOTE.COM questions. And his web site does little to help those seeking detailed education funding answers. But Bush has said his budget provides enough education funding, especially for testing, whatever that means. And we do not even know definitely the exact amount of money for the legislation the principle players agreed to be budgeted, or when. The published dollar amounts announced when the bill was signed, $26.5 billion for example, does little to explain the legislation's costs for implementation or when the funding was supposed to be dispatched, or when certain programs were supposed to begin and therefore its required funding. Like grade school children, Democrats and Republicans call each other liars. They have this huge pot of candy, yet are unable to publicly agree on who gets what and when, nor agree on how many candy bars each was supposed to get before the candy man came. If the matter was not serious, you would have to laugh out loud.

 

And How Much Will They Spend?
Republican leaders contend that Democrats well understood that while the law authorized as much as $80 billion in additional spending on Title I high-poverty schools alone by 2007, that did not mean the full amount would be appropriated. ''I can assure you, cross my heart, that we had many discussions about funding, but there was never a discussion, not one, about funding No Child Left Behind at authorization levels,'' reportedly said Boehner. ''It never happened.'' One of the Senate's shrewdest operators, Kennedy appears to feel personally swindled. Comparing the legislation to the enactment of Social Security or the 1960's race to the moon, Kennedy has said, ''I believe the exact same type of commitment was made to children." Bush ''misstated, misspoke, misrepresented his position'' on financing No Child Left Behind. Others scoff at the notion of a consummate politician like Kennedy being hoodwinked. ''Not a credible historical analysis,'' Sandy Kress has said, the lawyer who represented the White House in Congressional negotiations over No Child Left Behind. ''Nobody snookers Ted Kennedy.'' Manley insists that Bush under funded No Child Left Behind by $28 billion less than previously agreed upon authorization levels, which were discussed at length. Yet Manley expressed confusion about what years he was referring to with regard to the $28 billion, nor would he say how much money with nicety was authorized by the principle players. He did not have the figure readily available, he said. Funding for Legislation Used as Tool to Persuade the Public. So What's New?
It was probably a good idea for the late Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) to dismiss the No Child Left Behind Law in the absence of guarantees on future spending. But perhaps it was the intention of other Democrats not to seek overt guarantees. In that way they could take advantage and negatively criticize the Republicans for the gap between authorization levels and actual federal spending as a kind of unfulfilled promise, even if the GOP provided plenty of money pay for the law, or the agreed amount made privately. It could be a political weapon without merit, but only the inside players know the truth. So what do the authorized levels really mean? Within the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans, the authorization levels are generally described as nothing more than caps on spending. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) has said the authorization levels on education spending were "not a cap. It's a statement of intent, of desire. It's a goal you'd like to reach.'' So why then did the negotiations over the authorization numbers last months and were so fierce? Possibly because the Republicans knew authorization levels could turn into Democratic propaganda tools. So how much money is needed to pay for No Child Left Behind? Even individuals who conduct studies publish cost estimates that vary widely. William J. Mathis, a school superintendent and education finance professor in Vermont, reviewed cost estimates drawn up by 18 states and reported in the Phi Delta Kappan that public spending needs to increase between 20 percent and 35 percent to meet the goals of No Child Left Behind, an extra $85 billion to $150 billion a year. With wild estimates like this, a discrepancy of $65 billion, how can anyone agree on how much No Child Left Behind costs and therefore funded? It seems like an intense political game where the only goal is to make the other side look bad with an important issue to win elections, with reporters and therefore the public left in total confusion. Good luck to those who want to figure it out themselves, amongst all the lies, propaganda and stonewalling by the morons of every ideological persuasion who hold elected office and are manipulating the perception of this education bill and its funding for selfish political gain. Like the recently enacted Medicare law, the taxpayers are blind to how much money is needed to pay for this education initiative. It is all too typical Washington politics.

Public Friends Become Public Enemies
With Kennedy avoiding a Rose Garden ceremony honoring the one-year anniversary of the signing of No Child Left Behind (where Republicans were most dominant), while complaining of Bush's refusal to fund it adequately, the public perception of friendship between the two giants was officially six feet under. The connection had crashed. The two decoupled. But this was not in any way the end of their deteriorating public relationship. Indeed, the perception of blatant hostility was on the cusp, far beyond the typical boundaries of Washington politics. It took the Iraq war, an intense issue for all Americans on all sides of the issue, to push Kennedy into flat-out public hatred for the Commander In Chief. It is ideology versus ideology, mirroring some of the differences between Massachusetts and Texas, or western cowboy and eastern dove. And on April 5, 2004, at Washington D.C.'s Brookings Institution, the hot lava of hatred, at least that designed for public consumption, built up and finally blew out of Kennedy's red-hot head. One may not agree with Kennedy, but it probably was one hell of a show, for the intensity of the rhetoric reminds one of the heated slavery debates of antebellum Washington.

 

Molten Rock of Rhetoric
Just listen to the sizzle of Kennedy's address before the group. Read hard enough and you can almost see the molten rock ooze out of his head: After speaking of the importance of Americans to trust their government, Kennedy said "on issue after issue, they (the Bush administration) tell the American people one thing and do another. They repeatedly invent "facts" to support their preconceived agenda-facts which administration officials knew or should have known were not true... This president has now created the largest credibility gap since Richard Nixon. He has broken the bond of trust with the American people." "The Bush administration misled the American people about the threat to the nation posed by the Iraqi regime," said Kennedy. "It was not an imminent threat. Iraq had no nuclear weapons, no persuasive links to Al Qaeda, no connection to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, and no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons...They misled Congress and the American people because the administration knew that it could not obtain the consent of Congress for the war if all the facts were known." "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam," said Kennedy, which was among his most explosive words of the speech... As we now know, all the reassuring language of the 2000 election campaign was a Trojan horse cynically constructed to smuggle the extreme right wing in the White House... Iraq has also diverted attention from the administration's deceptions here at home - especially on the economy, health care and education." Bush's Bribes
In the fall of 2003, Kennedy also said, "the administration had failed to account for nearly half of the $4 billion the war was costing monthly. He said he believed that much of the unaccounted money was used to bribe foreign leaders to send in troops. He also expressed doubts about how serious a threat Saddam Hussein posed to the United States in its battle against terrorism. "This (plan) was made up in Texas and announced in January to the Republican leadership. That war was going to take place and it was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud," said Kennedy, who voted against authorizing the war." The fight on "terror has been put on the sidelines." Kennedy has also accused the administration of telling "lie after lie after lie." about Iraq. He also called Iraq "one of the worst blunders in the history of U.S. foreign policy." In September 2003 Bush described some of Kennedy's Iraqi comments as "uncivil." Bush has negatively criticized Kennedy to only a limited extent, but other GOP officials have been harsher. Some say Kennedy spewed the harsh anti-Iraqi war rhetoric mostly to be a hatchet man to help his fellow Massachusetts senator win election. That could be true and without the benefit of a worm hole, we will never know for sure. But Kennedy and Kerry have never been as socially close as some national political observers assume. And the same logic applies to every Democrat running for the highest office too. To this longtime Kennedy observer, the Senator truly believes what he said about war and he needed for the public to know it. He probably believes Bush betrayed him on education and Medicare, stirring true visceral hatred towards the GOP King.

 

Drug Use and the Elderly
And then came along a very important issue pertaining to the elderly, the very folks Kennedy is sworn to serve and protect; the gray-haired, high-voting constituents who regularly attach themselves to his candidacy like they do to their Social Security checks and help him obtain a plurality in every election. These are the people who see Kennedy as their favorite politician, their anchor of goodness, dependability and trustworthiness, like George Bailey in the movie "It's a Wonderful Life." And on this issue, assisting the elderly to purchase prescription drugs, both sides of the isle were cooperating, like they originally had on education. But once again, according to Kennedy, the GOP and Bush changed channels, forcing him to fail to deliver one of his most dearly-held issues to his favorite folks; that of helping them pay for life-saving drugs with the Medicare bill. Initially supporting it, Kennedy ultimately voted against it because, he said, the GOP destroyed the bill by morphing into a terrible deal for seniors. "You have to wonder if Senator Kennedy had not gotten out ahead up front on Medicare and prescription drugs, whether the momentum . . . would have ever gotten as strong as it got to be," reportedly said Stuart Rothenberg, an independent political analyst. "He basically credentialed the Republican effort. By the time he jumped off the train, it had already built up momentum." It was the second time Kennedy had seen legacy-building legislation he had crafted become a source of disappointment and division within his own party, along with the No Child Left Behind Act. The Medicare bill probably enhanced Kennedy's displayed animosity towards the rhetorically-soft Texan. "I can understand why Senator Kennedy is upset," said Tom Harkin (D-IA). In the summer of 2003 Kennedy hailed the Medicare bill as the "the greatest action in a generation to mend the broken promise of Medicare." And by the fall, it was Kennedy who complained about broken promises. The Trojan Horse Rides Again
Kennedy said the bill "is a raw deal for senior citizens and a sweetheart deal for the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry." On November 18 on the floor of the Senate, Kennedy said the bill "represents a radical right wing agenda to privatize Medicare and to force senior citizens into HMOs and private insurance plans...It will make millions of seniors worse off than they are today. It is a cynical attempt to use the elderly and disabled's need for affordable prescription drugs as a Trojan horse to destroy the program." But it was too late for Kennedy, who mounted a lonely and passionate campaign to kill the bill he helped begin. One explanation for Kennedy's recent significant legislative losses could be what was reportedly said by Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar with the Brookings Institution. There is a "much sharper ideological polarization now than when Kennedy did much of his signature legislating," said Mann, "And the Republicans in the White House and in the majority in Congress are more focused, unified, and tough in pursuing their policy and political objectives than Democrats ever were in a comparable position." And this could be fuel for Kennedy's public animosity towards the president. It spurs the defeat of his prized legislation, to leave the Senate as a winner, at the top of his game. And like the cost-conscious Republicans of a few years ago, the fiscally-liberal Kennedy now complains that the cost of the Medicare bill is $134 billion higher for the next ten years than what was projected when it was voted on, which administration officials knew and hid from Congress. My how themes among the parties have flip-flopped in recent years. Like Father-Not Like Son
Retrospectively looking at the Kennedy and Bush relationship, the Senator's friend, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), reportedly said, "I think Ted made some assumptions that he was comfortable with the Bush family." That affinity dates to the first Bush administration. "There was a lot of disagreement on issues but a basic stylistic compatibility," said Dodd of Kennedy and George H.W. Bush. The first President Bush presented the Senator with the third annual George Bush Award for Excellence in Public Service at a ceremony in College Station, Texas in November, 2003. "So I think Ted went into this administration with the assumption that he could work with this guy," Dodd continued. "And my sense is he's been personally burned and injured by failure of No Child Left Behind, and especially Medicare." Former Wyoming Republican Senator Alan Simpson and a friend of Kennedy, reportedly said the Senator has "been saying some vicious and nasty stuff. I'm appalled. These quotes are just plain nasty and, frankly, out of character for Ted." When told of this, Kennedy reportedly shook is head and laughed. "These issues make a great deal of difference to me," he said. "I think they're defining issues. War and peace, education, children, these are things I've worked on over a long time." Kennedy has said he has nothing against the president personally. There has not been contact with Bush since the Medicare bill passed in 2003, except briefly at a St. Patrick's Day reception. The president reportedly asked Kennedy if he'd lost weight. "Yeah, I've been out campaigning," Kennedy said. Bush told him not to lose any more weight. The Curse of Political Unity
Speaking at the University of New Hampshire in Durham during the now long forgotten bipartisan No Child Left Behind "victory" tour, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) said, "The way I see it is if Ted Kennedy can come to New Hampshire to be on this stage with President Bush and myself, then this must be the year the Red Sox win the World Series." Said Kennedy of Bush back when the two were trying to appear as friends in public, "We could have gotten into a situation where we would have been involved in partisan squabbles . . . through the elections of 2002 and 2004. It would have been a missed opportunity. I think President Bush understood that. I certainly did." Well, it is a good thing Kennedy and Bush are no longer involved in partisan squabbles. And the unchanging American saga continues...



[John Pike is a veteran journalist based in Boston. He has been a guest commentator on many radio stations and his articles have appeared in numerous magazines, newspapers and web sites, including the Boston Globe, Reason Magazine, Insight Magazine, Access Magazine and the Associated Press. He believes that a Greek god has it in for American political unity and the University of Massachusetts at Lowell River Hawks hockey team. He can be reached at pike@EVOTE.COM.]