creative, flexible, oil painting (http://www.oilpaintingscn.com),and brimming over with new ideas. But that wasn’t what had made him Speaker; his searing attacks on the Democrats had done that. It’s hard to restrain the sourcyour power, as Newt was reminded the next day whee ofn he was criticized by Rush Limbaughand the conservativeManchester Union Leader for being too pleasant to me. It was a mistaket Ithe Senate. He was one of the Senate’s leading authorities on theenvironment and high technology. He had also devoted an extraordinary amount of time to thegddress from the Oval Office, I offered a plan to balancethe budget in ten years. oil paintings (http://www.oilpaintingscn.com),The Republicans had proposed to do it in seven, with big spendingiceterlead,ed to do so after demonstrating a good-faith effort to makehonorable compromises. Besides, china oil painting (http://www.oilpaintingscn.com),in New Hampshire, the Speaker and I had pledged to try tound established White House procedures, and had worked for Republicans. Healso had some off-the-wall ideas from time to time and wanted to politicize foreign policy toodivide between Republicans and Democrats and taking the best ideas of both. To manyliberals and some in the press corps, triangulation was compromise without conviction, ahe wouldn’t often repeat in the future, at least not in public. After the meeting I went to Boston for a fund-raiser for Senator John Kerry, who was up for reelection and would likely face a tough opponent in Governor Bill handmade oil paintings (http://www.oilpaintingscn.com),Weld. I had a good relationship with Weld, perhaps the most progressive of all the Republican governors, budidn’t want to lose Kerry inproblem of youth violence, an issue he had cared about since his days as a prosecutor. Carinabout an issue in which there are no votes today but which will have a big impact on the future is a very good quality in a politician. On June 13, in a nationally televised acuts in education, health care, and the environment, and large tax cuts. By contrast, my planhad no cuts in education, health services for the elderly, the family supports necessary to make welfare reform work, or essential environmental protections. It restricted tax cuts to middle-income people, with an emphasis on helping Americans pay for the rapidly rising costs of a college education. Also, by taking ten years instead of seven to get to balance, my plan’s annual contractionary impact would be less, reducing the risk of slowing economgrowth.The timing and substance of the speech were opposed by many congressional Democrats and some members of my cabinet and staff, who thought it was too early to get into the budgetdebate with the Republicans; their public support was dropping now that they were making decisions instead of just saying no to me, and a lot of Democrats thought it was foolish to gin their way with a plan of my own before it was absolutely necessary to put one out. Aftthe beating we’d taken during my first two years, they thought the Republicans should have to endure at least a year of their own medicine. It was a persuasive argument. On the other hand, I was the President; I was supposed to and we had already cut the deficit by a third with no Republican support. If I later had to voil painting reproductions (http://www.oilpaintingscn.com),eto Republican budget bills, I wantwork together. I wanted to hold up my end of the bargain. My budget decision was supported by Leon Panetta, Erskine Bowles, most of the economicteam, the Democratic deficit hawks in Congress, and Dick Morris, who had been advising me since the ’94 elections. Most of the staff didn’t like Dick because he was difficult to deal with, liked to go aromuch, but I had worked with him long enough to know when to accept, and when to reject, his advice. Dick’s main advice was that I had to practice the politics of “triangulation,” bridging the