In an April 12 editorial asking if President Bush's “presidency can be saved,” The Washington Post asserted that the “poisonous partisanship in Washington” will not help Bush's flagging approval ratings and attacked Democrats, who -- the Post asserted -- are “united in their desire to see Bush fail.” Offering Bush “some advice on a fresh start,” the Post suggested several “initiatives” that it said would not “require radical cooperation across the aisle.” But even after asserting -- citing no evidence -- that Democrats simply want to see Bush fail, the Post failed to inform readers that each of its proposals for Bush to undertake “a fresh start” has been supported and even advocated by Democrats in Congress.

From the Post's April 12 editorial:

Can this presidency be saved? President Bush's approval rating has plummeted to a dismal 38 percent, according to the latest Post-ABC News poll. Democrats will rejoice at their improving prospects of recovering a majority in Congress. But a damaged president governing for nearly three more years in a dangerous world is no cause for rejoicing. With that in mind, we offer Mr. Bush, at no charge, some advice on a fresh start.

[...]

But nothing he does on Iraq is likely to do him any good in the polls.

Nor will the poisonous partisanship in Washington, with Democrats united in their desire to see Mr. Bush fail while his erstwhile Republican allies scurry for cover. Mr. Bush wasn't interested in bipartisanship when he was flying high; he's certainly not going to find it now. So we propose no initiatives that, however needed, would require radical cooperation across the aisle -- no entitlement reform, no reshaping of the tax code.

Nonetheless, there are things Mr. Bush could do.

1. Curbing global warming

From the Post's April 12 editorial:

He [Bush] spent his first five years insisting that research on climate change is all the government need do. But the danger signs have steadily strengthened, the cost of inaction could be catastrophic, and there is ample space for creative policies that would begin to address the problem without harming the economy. Imagine if he embraced the evidence, and the opportunity.

Though readers of the Post editorial would not know it, both Democratic and Republican members of Congress have “embraced the evidence” of global warming and have taken the “opportunity” to address the problem. For example, in August 2005, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) traveled to Alaska with Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to observe the effects of arctic warming. According to an August 18, 2005, Associated Press article, Clinton told reporters: “I don't think there is any doubt left for anyone who actually looks at the science. ... There are still some holdouts, but they are fighting a losing battle. The science is overwhelming, but what is deeply concerning is that climate change is accelerating.” The AP added: “Opponents who ignore evidence of humans contributing to climate change, Clinton said, are participating in a trend of turning Washington, D.C. into what she calls an 'evidence-free zone.' ”

On May 26, 2005, Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) and McCain introduced the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2005, which has since been co-sponsored by Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME). According to the Congressional Research Service, the act would, among other things, establish “a program for market-driven reduction of greenhouse gases (GHGs) through the use of tradeable allowances” and require GHG producers “in the electric power, industrial, and commercial sectors of the U.S. economy to submit ... beginning in 2010, one tradeable allowance for every metric ton of GHGs emitted.”

2. Illegal immigration and aid to Mexico

From the Post's April 12 editorial:

He [Bush] could seize hold of the immigration debate, where he has provided wavering leadership at best, to insist not only on comprehensive, generous reform but also on a deepened relationship with Mexico, including investment aid, that would offer the ultimate best hope for solving the border problem.

Democrats have a history of supporting such aid to Mexico. On July 10, 2003, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) -- now the Senate Democratic leader -- proposed an amendment to “help minimize the impact of the current rural development crisis in Mexico.” Reid's amendment -- which the Senate approved with the support of 46 Democrats and eight Republicans -- would provide $100 million for "[m]icro credit lending," "[s]mall business and entrepreneurial development," "[s]mall farms and farmers that have been impacted by the collapse of coffee prices," and "[s]trengthening the system of private property ownership in the rural communities."

In a floor speech supporting his amendment, Reid explicitly connected underdevelopment and poverty in Mexico to the wave of illegal immigration:

REID: I understand that when people have no money, when their families are hungry, and when their livelihood is vanishing before their eyes -- think of Mexico's coffee growers -- they look for other ways to survive. Some grow poppies, but others take unbelievable risks to come to America.

Now, I am opposed to illegal immigration. I think everyone should comply with the law. But it has to tear at your heartstrings to see people who are so desperate that they risk their lives to come across the Rio Grande River.

[...]

We have ignored Mexico, and that is wrong. We must remember that what goes on in Mexico concerns our Nation, because in today's world, problems like drugs and poverty do not grind to a halt at our borders. The Rio Grande River is not sufficient to stop the flow of illegal drugs into our country. The Rio Grande River is not sufficient to stop the poverty that comes across our borders in the form of illegal immigration that taxes our social services, our law enforcement officers and our educational system.

3. Lobbying reform

From the Post's April 12 editorial:

Mr. Bush could renew his oft-stated commitment to ethical government by championing lobbying reform.

On March 29, the Senate passed a bipartisan lobbying reform bill by a vote of 90-8. In a March 31 editorial, the Post described the Senate bill as “disappointing” because of “what's missing” from it. On March 31, the Post lamented that the bill “doesn't include any new enforcement mechanism” because “an important proposal for a new Office of Public Integrity, an independent, nonpartisan entity empowered to conduct investigations and make recommendations to the House and Senate ethics committees, failed on the Senate floor.” Twenty-two Democrats and eight Republicans voted in favor of including the “important proposal for a new Office of Public Integrity” in the lobbying bill.

The Post's objections to the lobbying reform bill have been articulated by the Senate Democrats who voted against it. A March 30 Post news article noted that “Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), one of the authors of the Democrats' lobbying proposals, voted against the Senate bill in part because it did not contain the office of public integrity.” Obama was the lead sponsor of a Democratic bill -- co-sponsored by Reid and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) -- to create an Office of Public Integrity. On March 29, Obama stated:

The Senate has missed a once-in-a-decade opportunity to clean up the way we do business in Washington. This bill fails to create an independent enforcement mechanism to investigate misconduct by members of Congress. It fails to stop lobbyists from currying influence by flying lawmakers on private jets. And it does nothing to prevent members of Congress from negotiating for jobs with the very industries they're supposed to regulate.

The Post further noted on March 30 that in passing its lobbying reform bill, the Senate “decided to prohibit lawmakers from accepting meals and gifts from registered lobbyists, but shelved a plan offered by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) yesterday that would have applied that ban to companies and organizations that employ those lobbyists.” Feingold voted against the bill.

4. Hurricane Katrina rebuilding

From the Post's April 12 editorial:

He could give meaning to his statement of seven months ago, in an artfully staged speech from New Orleans: “We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action.” That's the last we heard of it; what if he decided to show it wasn't just a sound bite to get him through hurricane season?

In January, the White House announced that it would not support a bipartisan plan that would have established a Louisiana Recovery Corporation to buy out property damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and sell it for redevelopment projects. The bill was introduced in the House by Rep. Richard H. Baker (R-LA) and is co-sponsored by the rest of the Louisiana delegation, including Democrats William J. Jefferson and Charlie Melancon. A similar version of the bill was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Mary L. Landrieu and is co-sponsored by Clinton, Lieberman, and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).

In a January 26 editorial, The Times-Picayune (New Orleans) wrote:

Federal reconstruction czar Donald Powell said Tuesday that the administration will oppose U.S. Rep. Richard Baker's plan for federally backed buyouts of flooded-out homeowners. That bill, or something like it, is vital to the swift recovery of greater New Orleans. It would set up a governmental agency that would buy flood-damaged homes, pay off outstanding mortgages and sell off land for redevelopment.

This plan would be a lifesaver for thousands of people who owe more on their mortgages than their homes are now worth. It would allow local and state governments to coax residents of flood-ravaged neighborhoods to viable neighborhoods on safer ground.

As the Post noted in a January 28 news article, Landrieu said on her Senate website that Bush's decision to oppose the bill “demonstrates a continued lack of understanding for the magnitude of the devastation and the immense rebuilding task our state faces.”

5. Detainees

From the Post's April 12 editorial:

Or imagine the positive shock he [Bush] could deliver by announcing that he would no longer tolerate the scandal of U.S. abuse of detainees, eight of whom have been tortured to death and at least 98 of whom have died in custody. Acknowledging the long-term damage done to the nation by the mistreatment, and by the refusal to punish any but the lowest-level servicemen, Mr. Bush could promise to reform the system, allow the Red Cross into his secret prisons, and work with Congress to provide a legal framework for detention, interrogation and trials.

Democrats have already proposed allowing the International Committee of the Red Cross and other organizations to inspect the conditions under which detainees are held. A bill introduced on January 4, 2005, by Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-NJ) and co-sponsored by six other House Democrats would require the president to “ensure that representatives” of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture “are immediately granted unfettered access to detainees or prisoners in the custody or under the effective control of the armed forces of the United States.” Holt's bill would also require that interrogations be videotaped in order to “to prevent any abuse of detainees and prisoners.”