European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - October 28, 1990, Darmstadt, Hesse Page 10 a the stars and stripes sunday october 28, 1990 column Walter Mears Wistful is the word for gop election Hopes just a handful of votes president Bush said almost wistfully and republicans could control the Senate. But it would take a full hand five seats to wrest it from the democrats. And that target is almost certainly beyond gop reach in off year elections that republicans hoped would be at minimum a stepping Stone for 1992. That is the More Likely year for a congressional shakeup despite this election seasons voter Wrath at a stumbling government and worsening Economy. The performance has Hurt Bush a standing but he a still not As unpopular As Congress in the Public opinion polls. For a 1992 game plan to hold up the republicans need to add at least a seat or two to their 45 in the Senate this year a and there sat least As Good a Chance that they will lose seats instead. At this Point strategists in both parties expect Little net change in the party lineups in Congress. A political aide to Bush Hedges the bet by saying that the White House Hopes to defy history and beat the pattern in which a presidents party loses House and Senate seats in off year congressional elections. Counting that Way the administration can claim to have won while losing. Limited losses in the House wont make a lot of difference Given the lopsided majority the democrats hold there. Both sides anticipate democratic gains in the House probably in the Range of a Hal dozen seats. The White House party has not gained House seats in any off year elections since the democrats did it in 1934. But in the Senate an off year gop loss in line with the historic pattern of three seats would cripple Republican chances of converting their minority into a majority and thus gaining a piece of the action at the Capitol during the Bush presidency. The lineup is now 55 democrats 45 republicans five seats Short of the tie that would enable vice president Dan Quayle to vote the gop into control. Despite the improbability of it Quayle said a maybe Well be Lucky enough to pick up five seats and then it would be a 50-50 a it would be my sheer Delight to Anthony Lewis preside Over a divided Senate and to cast tie breaking vote after tie breaking vote for the programs of president George Bush a he added during a Campaign Stop thursday in Runnemede . Bush brought the subject up later thursday surrounded by the congressional Republican leadership in the Rose Garden. A if we had More republicans like everyone who is standing Here we be in this fiscal republicans held Senate majorities for six of Ronald Reagan a eight years in the White House gaining control with a Surprise dozen seat gain when he was elected in 1980, losing it in 1986, when democrats picked up eight seats in off year balloting. This time position is a More realistic Republican goal than control. The nov. 6 Competition is for 18 Senate seats now held by republicans 16 held by democrats. Gop strategists said they were out to establish a foundation for gains into the 1990s. Eight gop House members left Safe seats to bid for the Senate five of them against incumbent democrats the other three seeking to succeed retiring republicans. Bush was Riding record High voter approval ratings while he had no coattails in winning the White House his popularity looked like a major off year asset. His ratings slipped then slumped. And democrats who had seemed vulnerable Early in the year turned out to be Tough at the end. In 1992, the democrats will have 20 Senate seats to defend republicans 14. Eleven of the democrats Are freshman senators and will be up for re election for the first time. There Are Likely to be retirements among senior democrats some with problems like sen. Alan Cranston a savings and loan involvement. But those promising circumstances wont make much difference unless republicans gain where history says slip. Even then the 1992 strategy assumes a Strong Bush ticket with coattails that were lacking in the 1988 elections. While he was winning the White House the democrats were gaining a seat in the Senate. They Haven to sustained a net loss there in any election since 1980. C associated press Bush s explanation of veto does t hold up is George Bush the president who understood the danger of Saddam Hussein a aggression and rallied the world against it or is he the Man who made Willie Horton an Issue in his Campaign for president that compelling question is raised by Bush a veto of the civil rights Bill. The Man who displayed such a sure sense of How to bring people together in foreign policy was Uncertain and unconvincing on this most delicate Domestic Issue dividing instead of Healing. A a in be known president Bush for 40 years and its hard for me to believe that he does no to have some sensitivities that comment was made in frustration by William t. Coleman jr., the former Secretary of transportation a distinguished Republican lawyer who tried to Rescue the civil rights Bill in negotiations with legislators and the president and his aides. Coleman talked with the president and was Given what he thought was a mandate to work out a Good Bill with White House assistance. But when he met chief of staff John Sununu Coleman said this is what happened a i would go into a room and have a discussion with governor Sununu. Eventually we would agree on something and wed ask Boyden Gray the White House counsel to put it in writing. It would never get put in writing. Id sit Down and say a of explain what is wrong with the Bill and if you convince me Congress made a mistake i will change it a they never would Coleman said that he found the veto All the More frustrating and inexplicable because he had the agreement of leading Republican senators for a com Promise Bill. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah was the key figure. After 40 hours of negotiations he endorsed a text that had been hammered out with Coleman. Other republicans praised the Compromise. Sen. Al Fonse do Amato of new York told him Coleman said a Bill in a for you All the but do Amato voted to sustain the presidents veto As did Hatch. So Why did Bush say no to the Bill the reason he gave was that it would Lead businesses to use racial quotas in hiring. But that explanation conflicted with the record of experience. In 1971, in the Griggs Case the supreme court held unanimously that the civil rights act of 1964 prohibited not Only intentional discrimination in hiring but practices that had the effect of hurting women and minorities. Businesses operated under that Standard for 18 years without using quotas. Then last year in the wards Cove Case a 5-to-4 majority of the supreme court reinterpreted the civil rights act. It said that employees who sued Over a practice that tended to exclude women or minorities had the Burden of proving that the practice was not related to Job requirements. Ironically the wards Cove decision was an example of what Bush has said that courts should not do legislate. The statute was the same in 1989 As in 1971 the court simply rewrote its meaning. The vetoed legislation would have put the Burden Back on employers to prove that a practice with a discriminatory effect was necessary for business reasons. The legislation made other modest changes in recent court interpretations. At Coleman surging civil right groups agreed to a number of late compromises in Orde to avoid a divisive struggle. But the president could not be persuaded. Colemar gave this account a the would Tell me a in a not a lawyer. If my lawyer say the Bill would mean quotas what can i do a a i said a Why done to you talk to some of your friends it the Senate who Are lawyers get Hatch and Rudimar and Specter up Here. A but with the budget and the Middle East i think it just did no to have that is the disappointed explanation of a Man who has campaigned for Bush and believes in his fundamental decency. A less charitable View is that the preside m let himself be used by people who did no to want a Civi. Rights Bill. They wanted an Issue. The word a a quotas is a political red Flag. Some republicans count on it to win the votes of White workers who Are angry at what they consider coddling of Blacks. These politicians do not care that the quota charge in that Case flies in the face of history. They do not care that such a conservative As James j. Kilpatrick endorsed the Bill. Is Bush one of those wavers of the red Flag playing politics with the dangerous Issue of race or does he simply have no beliefs this was a defining moment and we still have no definition. C new York times
