Transition Expert Has Answers

Veteran CBS News White House Correspondent Bill Plante is the host of CBSNews.com's Smoke-Filled Room. Each week, Bill invites a top political expert into the Smoke-Filled Room to answer your questions. Today’s guest is Paul Light, an expert on the presidential transition process.

Plante: Our first viewer notes that "Many people are claiming that Bush "stole" the presidency because he did not win the popular vote and that the Supreme Court abetted him with their ruling. What does he need to do to "prove" he won the election?"

Light: He'll never be able to prove that he won the popular vote, and shouldn't try. The fact is that he lost the popular vote, end of story. He is on the strongest ground by noting that he ran a campaign designed to win the electoral vote, and that doing so involved a very different strategy from one designed to produce the most votes. His best strategy for proving that he won the election is to get on with governing, meaning to take hold of the government as the duly selected president-elect. He needs to look forward, not backward. Luckily, he is not the only president in history to win election by a close margin. John Kennedy won the presidency by a just over 110,000 votes, and was able to forge a strong, even mythic presidency.

Plante: "What problems, if any, do you expect George W. Bush to encounter in his transition due to the contested election?" Don is curious.

Light: The first problem is obvious: delay, delay, delay. Bush and his transition team have only half a transition left, with all that means for increased risk of mistakes and heightened pressure to move quickly. Even with a normal transition and good luck, Bush would have been lucky to get his administration in place by next November - Clinton didn't have a fully confirmed cabinet and subcabinet until mid-October, 1993, and Bush, Sr., had to wait until early October, 1989. Now we're thinking that the new Bush will be fortunate to have his full administration in place by March 2002.

Plante: Shelley asks, "What must President-elect Bush do to effectively work with the sharply divided Hous and Senate? Will he be able to accomplish anything? What should be the first legislation that Bush brings before the Congress?"

Light: Bush needs to do exactly what he says he wants to do: unite, not divide. He needs to pick policy issues that allow him to create strong coalitions of Democrats and Republicans without sacrificing his core principles. If everything they say in Texas is true, Bush is truly capable of reaching across the boundaries of party. But let's face it, he best chance is to build coalitions of Republicans and "Blue Dog," conservative Democrats.

Plante: Stacy Miller writes, "Because George W. Bush will assume office from the weakest possible position, might he have a rare opportunity to become a truly geat president?"

Light: It is hard to say. There have been very few truly great presidents who have entered office under such close conditions. Nixon? Not a chance. Kennedy? Perhaps, but we hardly got to know him. Truman? Absolutely. The real measure of greatness is in what Bush will do by way of solving the big problems he's identified.

Plante: "During January, before President-elect Bush takes office, there will be a period of time where the 107th congress has been sworn in, but Al Gore is still Vice President. This will give the Democrats a 51 to 50 edge in the Senate," writes David Embody. He asks, "Could President Clinton use this opportunity to get any senatorial business he has lying around acted upon?"

Light: There is only one number that really makes a difference in getting things done in the Senate, and it is the number 60, not 50. The Senate operates by what is called unanimous consent. Absent the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster, any individual senator can tie up the entire body forever. There's no chance that Clinton will get anything during January except a fond farewell.