Everytime something bad happens with this administration we get new articles saying that President Bush now has some great opportunity to do…something less bad. At this point the articles almost write themselves. For example:
“The Texas mafia is leaving,” said Ron Kaufman, a longtime political advisor to the Bush family. “There’s a shift in the philosophies of the appointees you have [around the president]. They are much more creatures of Washington, D.C., and not Austin, Texas.”
But therein may lie an opportunity for Bush. In two weeks, the president has accepted the resignations of the two members of his staff who have drawn the most ire from the Democrats who now control Congress: Gonzales and political advisor Karl Rove. And that may give Bush a chance to salvage his relationship with Capitol Hill and the legacy of his second term.
“Politically, this is great for Bush,” said George C. Edwards III, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. “Gonzales was a source of controversy, undermining respect for the presidency and the administration.”
I used to do this too. I’d wrack my brain trying to think what the best thing for the president to do would be and then I’d write it up as a kind of advice piece. I don’t do that anymore. I try to learn from experience.
The president almost always replaces failed public servants with even more hopeless incompetents. The only exception I can think of is his replacement of Don Rumsfeld with Robert Gates. Gates has been an improvement. But think of the irony. When he was at the CIA, Gates lied to Congress during the Iran-Contra affair and was known for fixing the facts around Reagan’s policies.
Schumer recalled the experience of President Reagan, who was hobbled by the Iran-Contra controversy in his second term. Reagan revamped his presidency by shuffling his top aides and bringing in new staffers with more Washington experience.
“In 1986, Ronald Reagan’s second term, in the middle of it, he was in trouble. And what he did is he changed course. He brought in [former Tennessee Sen.] Howard Baker, he brought in a whole new bunch of people, and we had a great two years,” Schumer said. “You know, I hope George Bush takes a page from Ronald Reagan’s book.”
Bush’s one decent appointment involved appointing someone from the Iran-Contra scandal that forced Reagan to retool. And, in any case, Senator Schumer is smoking crack if he thinks we’re going to have great couple of years with the Bush administration. Here’s a more realistic assessment.
One key member of that new team was Kenneth M. Duberstein, who served as Reagan’s last chief of staff. Duberstein on Monday speculated that it might be too late to lift the Bush presidency. “The damage has already been done to Bush,” he said.
Yup.
Cross-posted at Taylor Marsh, where I am guess-posting this week.
The advantage to figuring out in advance what Shrub could do to improve things…
is that you can very quickly cross those things off the list.
Unfortunately you can’t even get Las Vegas money to take bets on those sorts of outcomes; it’s like betting against gravity.
It almost doesn’t matter who Bush puts forth. It’s going to be a flunky, the AG job is too important to trust to somebody who would actually want to be an independent voice.
So whoever it is, the President will expect Congress to approve the person as quickly as possible and the “serious pundit class” will cluck their tongues and say that it’s time for the Democrats to stop politicizing the process and for them to do exactly what the President says.
Which of course is pure bullshit. We know what’s coming, we know what will happen, yadda yadda. And by Halloween we’ll have another Bush jagoff running the enforcement arm of the GOP (formerly the Justice Department).
I can’t believe that people who get paid to write news can still talk seriously about Bush’s “legacy”. The flunky he appoints as AG will not make the slightest difference in the disgust with which history will view him and the Republican Party that enabled him.
AGs, like other administration members, are not freelancers. They do not work against the president’s wishes. All this talk about Gonzales and his successor only serves to strengthen the delusion that Bush is somehow not responsible for the nonstop disaster that defines his administration. The buck still stops there.
As to his legacy, he will be remembered as the man-child sociopath who came into office on a wave of new-millennium hope and excitement and left a bitterly divided, barely functional nation that he guided to betray its founding ideals in the name of neo-fascist nationalism, kleptocracy triumphant, and an abrupt end of the American Century marked by disgrace, disillusionment, and decline. Bush could reanimate and name as AG Tom Jefferson or ML King and it would make no difference to his pustulent “legacy”. His taint will stink up the White House for generations to come.
Yeah, like Tom Jefferson would accept the nomination…
I realize that was a toss-off, but it does bring up a real problem: nobody honorable enough to be AG would be dishonorable enough to accept a Bush nomination.
Change? Anybody that thinks that that is even a remote possibility is simply out of His/her mind! This man is not capable of shifting his position. He is a very sick, disturbed person. I don’t remember where I heard it but very recently, I heard a comparrison of Bush speaking off the cuff in the early or middle 1990’s and bush speaking contemporaneously. It was so frightening! This man is breaking down! I have to tell ya that it mighty well have been the scariest thing that I have heard ever! This is damaged good sfolks. Really damaged Goods!
I’ve seen videos of what you are describing.
I’m sure YouTube will oblige, unfortunately I cannot access that from work so I can’t be sure.