Elections May Leave Bush An Early Lame Duck

Bipartisanship, though, has been in short supply since Bush became president. In his first term, he negotiated support from both sides for his No Child Left Behind education law even as Democrats took control of the Senate in June 2001 because of a party switch. But as a practical matter, Bush faced an opposition chamber in Congress for just 98 days before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, after which both parties rallied behind him for a time. Republicans won back the Senate in 2002.

Bush has had a difficult enough time winning support from a Republican Congress over the past two years, and some expect the party to turn on him even more if it loses, particularly because of the Iraq war, which has been an albatross for GOP candidates. When the voting is done, pressure may rise from within Bush's own ranks to rethink Iraq policy, as evidenced by comments by Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), who recently said that Bush should take a new course if the situation does not improve in 60 to 90 days.

But presidents have broad leeway to set foreign policy regardless of the legislative branch, and a Democratic Congress may exert more direct influence on domestic matters. Bush has been preparing his post-election agenda in a series of meetings, sitting down one-on-one with nine members of his Cabinet in the past month to review ideas. Bush insists that the sessions not consider a victory by Democrats, participants said. But the discussions have focused on items that could attract bipartisan interest, such as further efforts to rebuild the hurricane-torn Gulf Coast, reauthorization of No Child Left Behind and renewal of farm legislation.

"He's fired up for the last two years of his administration," Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said in an interview after meeting with Bush. Rob Portman, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said after his own session: "He's pushing all of us, pushing himself. I don't think there's going to be any letup."

Bush aides recognize that no matter who wins next month, the president has at best a year to push through any last major initiatives before the 2008 presidential race takes over the national political agenda. Portman, a former House member, said he hopes there will be "a timeout on partisanship" after next month's election that can be exploited in 2007. "It's a critical year," he said.

The agenda-planning meetings are the brainchild of White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, who handed out the countdown clocks to fellow Bush aides earlier this year. Bolten wants to use the process to develop new ideas and find ways to measure the success of old ones, colleagues said.

"There's still plenty of time to get important things done if people on both sides of the aisle are willing to work together to do it," Deputy White House Chief of Staff Joel Kaplan said in an interview. "Two years is a long time." After the election, Kaplan said, Bush will "look for partners in Congress" to accomplish priorities, such as extending his tax cuts, developing alternative energy supplies and promoting American competitiveness.

The question in the White House is whether Democrats would be willing to be partners. While Democrats see Bush as relentlessly partisan, his aides think Democrats have been deliberately obstructionist even on issues of little dispute. Against that backdrop of mutual suspicion, the two sides may find it difficult to come together.

"The Democrats are so blinded by their hate of Bush, they'll have a hard time even having a bill-signing with him," Republican lobbyist Ed Rogers said. "That might make for some good political contrasts, but not much substance."

Ron Kaufman, who was White House political director for George H.W. Bush, said: "If they try to take down the president, if you will, it would be really stupid. It would play into the long-term interests of the Republican Party."

Leon E. Panetta, who became Clinton's White House chief of staff after the 1994 Republican victory, agreed: "My fear is that the Democrats after 12 years of trench warfare and a pretty rough time -- these people are pretty battle-scarred from that -- basically come out and seek vengeance for everything that's taken place. If they do that, I think they make a pretty big mistake because the public will say, 'These guys are no different than Tom DeLay and his crowd.' "

Others doubt the Democrats would make that mistake. Former House majority leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.), who squared off against Panetta in that era, said Democrats would be in better shape to transition from opposition to governing than his Republicans were in 1994 because enough seasoned veterans are still around, such as Rep. John D. Dingell (Mich.).

"The best Democrats, people like Dingell, on oversight have a tendency to say, 'Let's get into the programs and see how they work and how they could be better,' " he said. "That's healthy oversight. . . . They may stay away from political oversight looking for scandals and stay with programmatic oversight. They do it well and they may want to play against expectations."