House, Senate Leaders Seen as Too Cautious in Criticism of Bush’s Policies : Democrats Call on Foley, Mitchell to Speak Up for Party

They looked like a dream team when they took over as leaders of Congress’ Democratic majority earlier this year--an exceptionally bright, articulate pair who could not only advance the Democrats’ legislative agenda but also speak out effectively on behalf of their party.

But Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell of Maine and House Speaker Thomas S. Foley of Washington have surprised many Democrats in Congress, who now say that the new team has excelled in virtually every aspect of leadership except as party spokesmen.

Both new leaders have proved unusually cautious when called upon to speak out against the policies of the Republican Administration or to criticize the President.

“I don’t think we are any match for the President,” complained a senior House Democrat, who declined to be identified.

Party Lacks Identity

Rep. Dave Nagle (D-Iowa) added: “We clearly have not defined ourselves as a party or contrasted ourselves with the President on anything except the minimum wage, and even there we seem to be beating a retreat. I hear a rumor that there is a Democratic agenda, but so far we’ve not encountered it and time is running out.”

The Democrats’ frustration appears to stem largely from a sense of disappointment that Bush’s honeymoon has lasted much longer than any of them had expected and that the President’s popularity remains high, despite some political setbacks.

“I don’t blame them for being upset,” remarked Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona. “Unless something turns around, they are looking at seven more years of a Republican Administration. Hell, I’d be complaining, too.”

Blunder by Leadership

Many Democrats believe Mitchell and Foley blundered by failing to pounce on what Democrats saw as the weaknesses in the President’s new drug program, which he announced in a nationally televised speech Sept. 5.

After the President briefed the two Democratic leaders on the program’s details a few hours before his speech, they refused to comment for the press. They left the formal Democratic response to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, whose reply immediately followed Bush’s speech on television. It was a week later that the Democrats issued an alternative program of their own, and the author was Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, Mitchell’s predecessor as Senate majority leader.

“Our response on drugs was a disaster,” groused a House Democrat. “We should have had a coordinated response. Instead, we had a garbled response.”

Higher Profile

House and Senate Democrats have been putting enormous pressure on their two leaders to take a higher profile in opposing presidential initiatives with which they disagree. For the first time since assuming the leadership, Mitchell and Foley stepped forward in the last two weeks to protest presidential policies on several key issues.

Mitchell, who succeeded Byrd last January as majority leader, has spoken out recently condemning the President’s policies on aid to Poland, education and environmental cleanup. Democrats said the statements were Mitchell’s response to pressure from his colleagues, who want him to be a high-profile party spokesman.

These efforts have eased some of the criticism. Like many Senate Democrats, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) hailed Mitchell’s recent statements as “masterful and correct” because they outlined Democratic disagreements with Bush without being hostile.

Mitchell, in an interview, acknowledged he has been getting a lot of “unsolicited advice” from other Democrats who are seeking a more confrontational approach. And he conceded his early attempts to speak out for his party--particularly in criticizing the Administration’s role in the Alaskan oil spill cleanup--had not been as successful as he had hoped.

Cautious Criticism

Mitchell admitted to being cautious when criticizing Bush. “I try to be careful not to engage in criticism for the sake of criticism, opposition for the sake of opposition,” he said.

But the Senate majority leader insisted his colleagues are unduly anxious about their current political dilemma. “There is a tendency on the part of people in politics to get panicky over these things,” he said.

He predicted that Democrats in Congress will soon hit their stride as the weaknesses of the Bush Administration become more apparent.

“I think the President has done well considering the relative lack of accomplishment in his Administration,” Mitchell said. He charged Bush’s proposal for a manned American space mission to Mars is typical of the President’s skill in getting credit for doing nothing.

“There is simply nothing there,” he said. “It was nothing more than a speech.”

Foley has been even more reluctant than Mitchell to speak out against Bush. Sources said the Speaker fears that any highly partisan statement on his part would infuriate the Republican minority in the House and rekindle the GOP animosity that earlier this year helped to bring down his predecessor, former Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.).

In fact, according to sources, Foley recently refused a suggestion by Democrats that he and Mitchell hold weekly joint news conferences to comment on the President’s programs, much as Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and House Minority Leader Charles Halleck regularly staged what was known as the “Ev and Charlie Show” during the Lyndon B. Johnson Administration.

Foley freely admits he is reluctant to use his position to criticize Bush.

“I plead guilty to this,” he said last week. “I don’t think it’s my daily task to try to embarrass the President.” He said there “aren’t many differences in goals” between Democrats and Bush, only differences over “methodology and means of reaching the goals.”

Even Foley’s harshest critics are quick to excuse him on grounds of inexperience. Unlike Mitchell, who became majority leader when the new Congress convened in January, Foley did not ascend to his post until four months ago. Moreover, he inherited many problems that Wright had allowed to fester during the Texan’s long battle against ethics charges.

For these reasons, most Democrats do not fault Foley himself for the stunning defeat the Democrats suffered Sept. 28 when the House adopted Bush’s proposal to cut the capital gains tax. The idea had taken hold in the House during Wright’s final days.

Feeling of Gloom

Nevertheless, the humiliating defeat over capital gains reinforced a feeling of gloom that has overcome many House Democrats as a result of their many setbacks in the past year. And it stepped up pressure on the Speaker to begin to spell out a legislative program for House Democrats, much as Mitchell has just started to do in the Senate.

“He has not been able to develop a leadership agenda and some are even saying they sure miss Jim Wright’s leadership,” said a prominent House Democrat. “I sure hope this is not a pattern in 1990.”

Although Foley shrinks from confrontation with Bush, he nonetheless recognizes that he must fashion a Democratic legislative program soon--at least by the beginning of the new year.

“You don’t put out a positive agenda in a day,” explained Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), who is the No. 2 man in the House Democratic leadership. “We need a little breathing room. But after the first of the year, we need to put together an agenda looking forward to the 1990 election.”

Ironically, the very qualities that have prevented Mitchell and Foley from getting too tough on Bush--their personal congeniality, reverence for good government and desire to resolve their differences with opponents--have also earned them high marks when it comes to running the day-to-day affairs of the Congress.

Spirit of Cooperation

Even Republicans praise the new spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship that the two new leaders have instituted in the House and Senate. “They are both very decent Americans, and I believe the American political process will benefit by having them in the Congress of the United States,” McCain said.

In both chambers, the change in leadership style has been stark.

Unlike Wright, who often hatched his political strategies in complete isolation, Foley often chats with members on both sides of the aisle and takes their advice seriously as he sets the House’s legislative schedule. As a result, the House no longer is torn by the partisan rancor that characterized the Wright regime.

Likewise, Mitchell, a former judge who prides himself in being meticulously fair, is seen as a welcome relief by most senators, who were bone-weary of Byrd’s habit of using his superior grasp of the Senate rules to terrorize the chamber. In fact, as a mark of their respect for the new leader, the Republicans no longer keep one of their members on the floor at all times as they did under Byrd to guard against his parliamentary tricks.

Even Sen. J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.), who was defeated by Mitchell in the race for majority leader, said he gives the new leader an “A-plus.”

Thus, despite their frustrations, Democrats in both chambers report their own quality of life has improved under the leadership of Foley and Mitchell. Said Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.): “People just enjoy coming to work again.”