| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Bush needs to fight back |
| 2007-04-02 |
| by William Kristol An experienced Republican operative of our acquaintance--normally a man of sanguine disposition--said it all last week. After denouncing the amazing irresponsibility of the Democratic Congress, after lamenting the refusal of much of the media to report progress from Iraq, after noting the apparent incompetence of the attorney general, after wondering why the secretary of state seems to be making herself irrelevant--he came as close as he ever does to exploding. "But all this doesn't matter. It's really about Bush. Doesn't he understand he's walking around with a 'Kick Me' sign on his back?" Surely President Bush must realize that the Democratic Congress is not merely struggling with him over policy, or jousting for political advantage. The Democrats in Congress are trying to destroy his presidency. They are trying to cripple his ability to govern for the rest of his term. And they are not far from succeeding. Will Bush fight back? This does not mean defending everything his administration has done indiscriminately, of course. It may be, for example, that Attorney General Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General McNulty should go. Then get rid of them now. Appoint strong conservatives to replace them. And insist on their prompt confirmation. Senate judiciary chair Pat Leahy threatened last week to hold up any such confirmation until his committee had access to testimony from Karl Rove. Why do the Democrats want Rove to testify? The Senate Democratic whip, Dick Durbin of Illinois, gave the game away in a recent interview with the Chicago Sun-Times's Lynn Sweet. Durbin explained that he wants Rove to testify so he can be forced to answer questions about "how much did the president know" and what did he do. Durbin wants to destroy the possibility of confidential communications between the president and his White House staff. And that's not all. If Rove were to be sworn in as a witness, Durbin continued, the committee would want to know, "What else was Karl Rove doing when it came to other activities, departments of the government?" In other words: Democrats want a fishing expedition. Bush needs to be unequivocal that his White House aides will not testify. And if Leahy holds up confirmation hearings for the nominee for attorney general--if there is one--Bush needs to make his man acting attorney general in the meantime, rather than allowing Democrats to impede his ability to govern. There is much else that Bush could do to show strength and remoralize his supporters. He could pardon Scooter Libby--now. When his top communications aide, Dan Bartlett, leaves, Bush could replace him with someone aggressive and conservative. And he could order his administration to battle for its initiatives and its people. Here's a small but revealing example of the current situation. Last week, the White House withdrew the nomination of St. Louis businessman and philanthropist Sam Fox to be ambassador to Belgium after John Kerry threw a fit about Fox's having given money in 2004 to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Kerry tried to insist that Fox apologize for his donation. Fox, a man of stature and dignity, refused to pretend to be contrite. Kerry bludgeoned Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democrats into opposing Fox--which was not so easy, as Fox had wide and bipartisan support in Missouri and beyond. But the White House did nothing, and Democrats fell into line behind Kerry. Sam Fox won't be an ambassador, but maybe the White House can learn from his experience. Refusing to yield to Kerry's bullying, Fox defended his contribution: "I did it because politically it's necessary if the other side's doing it." The other side is doing it in spades right now. If Bush doesn't fight back, the wreckage will extend to the few issues Bush has been vigorous on, such as Iraq. Even as Gen. Petraeus makes headway, even as John McCain demolishes the arguments of his Democratic colleagues, it will be increasingly difficult to maintain support for the war if the administration is in free fall. Many Republicans may be tempted to give up in exasperation on a Bush administration that often seems incapable of defending itself. This would of course be bad for the country, leaving the nation at the mercy of the Democratic Congress for the next year and a half. But it would also be a political mistake. Even though Giuliani and McCain and Romney and Thompson have a fair amount of distance from the Bush administration, there is almost no precedent for a party's retaining the presidency if the outgoing administration ends its term in a shambles. So if Republicans--even not-particularly-Bush-friendly Republicans--want to save the country from a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress in 2009, with all that implies for foreign policy and the Supreme Court, they need to fight to save the Bush administration. It would be helpful if Bush would fight too. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #8 I can't imagine the country or world would be any less well off if all 535 members of congress disappeared from Earth this afternoon. Which is why I've been obliged to speculate upon the intense irony of Washington DC being targeted for a terrorist nuclear attack when they have done so incredibly little to prevent such a catastrophe. Outstanding commentary, Verlaine! |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-02 19:04 |
| #7 Verlaine '08! |
| Posted by: xbalanke 2007-04-02 16:01 |
| #6 This could have been written (with different details) years ago. The administration has been passive forever, and outrageously so. Not outrageous because it hurts his approval ratings, because those don't matter - outrageous because the administration has mishandled fundamental issues in a way that will hurt the country and the world after Bush leaves office. Leave aside the infatuation with magic and finesse in Iraq (that's a malady that runs deep in the military, not the administration's creation). The crucial and common sense concept of pre-emption has been horribly mangled, and the role of (unavoidably flawed) intelligence in all that has never been explained. It took guts to act pre-emptively even being Bush, and even in the aftermath of 9/11. The next president may need to act even more decisively in a pre-emptive mode - and look at the political and public perception landscape Bush is bequeathing to the next CinC. As for Bush being toxic, the performance of the political class (GOP, and the presumably still extant small number of serious Dems) actually speaks for itself, and is as troubling as the WH's inexplicable passivity. Bush is toxic to the midgets who now populate the Hill, and who are in Washington for no apparent reason other than to be in Washington. Words like treason are cheap in website comment sections like this, and generally inappropriate. But cowardice and cluelessness are entirely justified strong words to use WRT the current political class. I can't imagine the country or world would be any less well off if all 535 members of congress disappeared from Earth this afternoon. Usual Twain-like snarkiness aside, that's a very damning observation. As a WH flails for no good reason, there's not a single voice, not a single personality that's even once stood up to provide some leadership. It's a lilliputian moment in American politics. But it's even worse than that. The descent of the major media into unprofessional, partisan, mediocre analytical advocacy is well understood. But less appreciated is the evaporation of standards in public service. The preposterous and loathsome Wilson couple are the poster children, but the leakers of the NSA program and the SWIFT operation are even more troubling. Thousands of rank-and-file public employees toil in strict compliance with all their professional and legal and ethical obligations, many risking their lives, often disagreeing with some policy that's current. And then arrogant, irresponsible, clueless senior types in comfortable Washington jobs take it upon themselves to be FISA Court, Supreme Court, National Security Council, and President all in one, and make momentous decisions about classified programs. And their felonies aren't even investigated effectively, no one goes to Club Fed. And that's not all. The Supreme Court just starts making shit up - even more than they already had in the 70s and 80s. They insert their ridiculous and baseless interpretation of Common Article III as law of the land - thus neatly usurping the proper constitutional roles of the Senate and the executive branch. So now an unelected panel of folks with no particular understanding of security issues obligates the US to international standards we specifically have refused to accept through the elected executive branch that has the job of dealing with such matters. And silly me, I used to think it was a bit rich even in the early 1990s to be explaining "rule of law" and the importance of a free press to ex-Soviets ..... sheesh. This WH is way, way past needing to fight back (and on substance, not political atmospherics). But seems to me like the wheels (professionally, ethically, in terms of standards) have come off the system in many other ways that can't be addressed by a WH public affairs or political offensive. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-04-02 15:44 |
| #5 So many times the Bush administration has been unwilling to defend itself. Part of the problem is W's speech impairment. Part of it is just fatigue. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-04-02 12:54 |
| #4 Bush can't really fight back; he's toxic - even the Repubs in Congress no longer feel they can associate with him. He's making as few waves as he can now so that at least he still has the potential to get a veto sustained (should he ever decide to use one.) |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-04-02 12:13 |
| #3 Someone once said "The best Defense is a good Offense." All I have seen in the past years is Defese and back peddling. The Donks case is weak and it wouldn't take much to topple that house of cards. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2007-04-02 10:40 |
| #2 I think Bush is tired and done, he tried to get the world and America to see what needed to be done and they rejected it and now he is probably thinking screw them. I would.( tho I do think Bush shot himself in the foot a couple times) |
| Posted by: djohn66 2007-04-02 07:59 |
| #1 Amen to that |
| Posted by: DanNY 2007-04-02 07:44 |