Is Loyalty to Friends Becoming Blindness for Bush?

Republican malaise

Feb 20, 2006
by Robert Novak

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- When Dick Cheney finally broke his silence by answering questions from Fox's Brit Hume last Wednesday, four days after the hunting accident, many Republicans could hardly believe it. They were stunned that the vice president indicated he had no regrets about the way the incident was handled. Every Republican I contacted had regrets in abundance.

Bush-bashers delighted in exaggerating Cheney's post-accident conduct as a metaphor for everything wrong with George W. Bush's presidency in its sixth year. Nevertheless, there are supporters of the president (and the vice president, as well) who believe the handling of the accident does reflect structural problems in the Bush White House. Those defects were present from the start of this presidency and remain, in the absence of a basic reconstruction after Bush's re-election.

Republican malaise in Washington derives less from anemic poll ratings than from overriding concern about how the Bush team functions. This anxiety is enhanced because Republican criticism of the White House is seen as evidence of disloyalty and consequently discouraged.

A vivid illustration is provided by Vin Weber, a former congressman who has been a major player in Republican politics for the past quarter of a century. While he now is a Washington lobbyist, he has remained deeply engaged in Republican politics (particularly back in his home state of Minnesota). Following the 2004 election, Weber was reported possibly to be coming to the White House as part of a staff reconstruction. In fact, Weber was willing to accept the economic sacrifice for him and his family by returning to public service.

But no call came from the White House because the president decided to stand pat in his staffing for a second term. Because Weber always has been a team player rather than an open-mouthed critic of his own administration, his comments on page one of last Wednesday's Washington Post attracted special attention. Weber specifically criticized Cheney, contending that the disclosure of the accident "should have been handled differently." In character, the White House let out the word that such mild criticism put this faithful Republican out of line.

Actually, as Weber surely would admit, the problems exposed by the Texas shooting were no aberration. But instead, they are systemic. Andrew Card, as Bush's only presidential chief of staff, has had an extraordinarily long tenure in that post of over five years, but has not dominated the presidential office in the manner of Sherman Adams and James Baker. Card always seemed less formidable than Bush political adviser Karl Rove, who with his additional title of deputy chief of staff mixes politics and policy.

Mr. Novak seems to be dead on target with this one. President Bush seems to rely far too heavily on Rove and Card and not enough on himself and the rest of his cabinet and staff. Though Rove is a shrewd actor with adequate political antennae, I don't think he has served the President as well post election as some others might.

Although there have been a number of stretched comparisons between President Bush's administration and that of the late Richard Nixon's, there is one similarity that I have seen, and perhaps it is inevitable when an administration is relentlessly attacked by the press and the disloyal opposition. That similarity is a kind of "circle the wagons mentality," a sort of "Fortress White House." The best way to counteract the attacks by the MSM and the Democrats is for some, counter-intuitive, and for others, second nature, that is to come out swinging. When one is passive in the face of constant assault, even if that assault is composed primarily of lies as has the one which President Bush has faced, the public begins to see that silence as a form of assent to what is being said. In spite of the attempts by those of us who have acted to defend the President-where I agreed with him-against those attacks, even those of somewhat exalted status such as Rush Limbaugh, we cannot come close to the power of the Presidential soapbox in countering those attacks. I do not know if the silence is a result of the Presidents own reluctance to speak out, or if it comes from the advice of Card, Rove, or Cheney (that last certainly follows the code of silence) but it is poor policy to aquiesse to the noise which constantly bombards the people from the Left.

Full Story: Still Time for a Change

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below