Mitchell, Foley Discard Nice-Guy Images, Criticize Bush

No more Mr. Nice Guys. Maybe.

The usually undynamic duo of Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell and House Speaker Thomas S. Foley on Thursday took some sharp shots at President Bush on his abortion stance, his capital gains tax cut plan and his proposed constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.

Their appearance before reporters and television cameras came after grumbling among many House and Senate Democrats that Mitchell and Foley are too passive, too unwilling to take off the gloves and mix it up with an unexpectedly partisan President.

While Mitchell seemed to relish his new role of Tough Cop, the ever-affable Foley appeared more comfortable as Good Cop, speaking more in sorrow than in anger about the possible delinquency of a wayward Republican colleague.

It may be the first installment of a long-running Capitol Hill “Tom and George” show to try and reduce the popularity ratings of the man in the White House.

The two Democrats began with a joint statement assailing the President on a politically sensitive issue--abortion rights--that leaders have deliberately avoided in the past because of possible backlash. Now, they apparently sensed, the political climate is changing.

Mitchell, in the stern tones of a judge reading a sentence, condemned Bush for promising to veto legislation that would, for the first time since 1981, allow Medicaid payments of abortions for victims of rape and incest.

“The President’s position is wrong,” he said. “It is harsh--terribly harsh--on the poorest, most vulnerable American women.”

Since the legislation barely squeaked through the House on Wednesday and the Senate has yet to give its final approval, the appeal might have been premature. But it reflected the leaders’ obvious desire to get out ahead on a story that has gotten front-page play across the nation.

Foley, acknowledging that the votes are not there to override a Bush veto on the bill, spoke in more muted language, saying: “I hope the President will not exercise his veto power. . . . This is a plea to the President to reconsider.”

Mitchell went on to note that the bill under veto threat also contains funds for AIDS research, shots for immunizing children against crippling diseases, Head Start classes and other popular federal programs.

Bush, he said without cracking a smile, should do the right thing “regardless of the political impact” of his action.

Foley and Mitchell also criticized the President for advocating a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag burning and for pushing a capital gains tax cut as part of a deficit reduction measure now before Congress.

Noting that both the Senate and House have completed action on a bill to make flag burning a federal crime, Mitchell said that an amendment is now “entirely superfluous.” He added that Bush has proposed changes in the Constitution “with no serious reflection.”

Foley, summoning up his toughest rhetoric of the 30-minute session, agreed that Bush’s backing for an amendment is “extremely unwise.”

Mitchell took another jab at the President for advocating a reduction in the capital gains tax that passed the House recently over the all-out opposition of Foley and the Democratic high command.

Contending that the tax cut would increase the deficit by $67 billion over the next decade, the Senate’s newly combative leader said that the President’s proposal is “entirely inappropriate, ill-timed and wrong.”

The Mitchell-Foley show was reminiscent of the Republican team of Sen. Everett M. Dirksen and Rep. Charles Halleck, who in the 1960s coordinated criticism of President Lyndon B. Johnson. Aides to the Democratic leaders said that the tactic probably would be repeated as the 1992 election nears.

Earlier, however, Foley vehemently denied a report in the Washington Times that he had referred to Bush as “a mad dog with a bone” regarding capital gains during an off-the-record talk with foreign journalists.

“It’s totally contrary to my manner,” said Foley, “and you know I think every President should be called Mr. or Mr. President.”

Pressed on his attitude toward Bush, he added: “I’m not going around with anything that I call a syndrome of irritation and frustration. . . . I don’t think any of us expect that we’re not going to have disagreements from time to time. But if there is any sense that there’s a breach of personal relations, or that there is a lack of comity, or as far as I’m concerned, respect--I hope mutual respect--that’s wrong.”