What Impact Will the White House Reorganization Have?

[Gokul43201]

So far, we have a new Chief of Staff, Scottie has retired and Rove will not take part in policy-making. Rumsfeld is clearly staying.

What do you make of the changes ? Will this help the administration's relationship with Congress ? Will it help Bush's ratings ?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Will it help Bush's ratings?

He's a lame duck. Why does he care about his ratings?

 

[BobG]

If the Bush administration is changing their direction and the way they do things, a new press secretary is a good move.

Changing the press secretary only changes the way things are said - it doesn't change the substance of any policies. Still, you shouldn't underestimate the effect of someone new presenting those policies in a different style. It does have an impact on the news reporters that attend press conferences. It makes it feel as if things have really changed and reporters will report what's said with a little less skepticism.

If there is a real change, the effect of the change is accelerated with a new press secretary. If there isn't a real change, reporters will figure it out before too long and a new press secretary will have no long term impact.

The move with Rove is more interesting and harder to figure out.

First of all, Rove never should have been given increased responsibility in the first place. Promoting Rove to a higher position within the administration amplifies any problems resulting from the Plame investigation and Abramoff investigation - it gives the appearance that problems were higher up in the administration even if the person were at a lower level position when the problems occur. It's a really bad idea to promote someone involved in Rove's types of problems since a promotion is an endorsement of the things Rove has done.

I also wonder how much gratitude Republican politicians will have for having Rove's problems transferred to Republican campaign efforts this summer and fall.

Firing Rove isn't a great idea, because it lends credibility to the claims that the Bush administration has acted unethically. It would be tantamount to firing Rumsfeld and admitting Bush's administration has botched national security.

Rove is an 800 pound gorilla that Bolten and the Republicans just can't get rid of and he'll be a problem for the duration of Bush's presidency wherever he goes.

 

[luckycharms]

I think they're moving Rove because there won't be any policy issues if Bush can't rebound politically. If they lose the House, the administration will be permanently playing defense. They need Rove full-time on politics.

And I think it's a good move for them. By November Rove will have the Democrats divided, confounded, and conquered on some trivial issue like gay pet adoption. Despite his personal liability to the administration, he's still invaluable as a strategist. And he can really play dirty in all those anonymous, local district races.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Flat beer in a new glass.

I don't expect this to make any difference. Also, I think Rummy will be gone soon. Cripes, even McCain said that he has no confidence.

 

[BobG]

Flat beer in a new glass.

I don't expect this to make any difference. Also, I think Rummy will be gone soon. Cripes, even McCain said that he has no confidence.

I think it's impossible for Rumsfeld to effectively lead the Defense Department when the generals he should be depending upon despise him. Still, I think you're overestimating the impact that will have. The political impact on Bush will outweigh national defense.

Besides, how many death watches does this make for Rumsfeld: Rummy Death Watch No. 3: Possible Replacements Named!. Sounds promising until you notice the date of the article is Sept 7, 2001.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The way that Bush thinks, the more they attack Rumsfeld, the more that makes him important. The only way Bush would let rumsfeld go would be if he became convinced that holding on to him was a liability with the general voters.

Bush is scornful of protests by elites such as scientists (in the nuke Iran context) and generals.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think Bush will stick with Rummy unless something really "dirty" comes out. Letting Rummy go might be taken as an admission of error. On the other hand, sticking with Rummy speaks of loyalty - and that will ring virtuous with his loyal, right-wing base.

On Hardball (MSNBC) las night, when a group of onlookers were asked whether Rummy should stay or go, it seemed like there was roughly an equal number supporting each stance, but the "Rummy should stay" group were an order of magnitude more vocal in their support. When asked why they think he should stay, the only answer was (approximately) "Because he's done a fine/excellent job so far". The only places I see/hear very vocal opponents of Rummy are on the Daily Show and in Air America Radio, both extremely left leaning. And, it appears to me, that a large chunk of the fence-sitters/undecideds/centrists are significantly less aware of current events than the more "extreme" folk. And in the absence of a determined effort to study events from various sources, an undecided will simply take the word of the person s/he trusts the most.

As for Rove, I remember reading a couple of months ago that it might come to be that he will lose his security clearance (in light of the Plame leaks) and have to resign from his policy-making role. Might that be what his reassignment is about ?

 

[BobG]

As for Rove, I remember reading a couple of months ago that it might come to be that he will lose his security clearance (in light of the Plame leaks) and have to resign from his policy-making role. Might that be what his reassignment is about ?

It's something that should happen as soon as a person is under investigation. They don't actually lose their security clearance and it isn't a punishment, but it is suspended since there's a rather reasonable chance they could lose it (assuming the investigation reveals a reason to revoke it).

 

[SOS2008]

In regard to Scotty, the real problem is whether this secretive administration will provide the new messenger with a message to give (regardless or whether it is truthful or not). I highly doubt that will happen -- Look at how Scotty's departure was announced without the press present. It will be just more of the same sanitized, staged, controlled BS. In the meantime, only hard core morons in the base will succumb to such machinations.

...but the "Rummy should stay" group were an order of magnitude more vocal in their support. When asked why they think he should stay, the only answer was (approximately) "Because he's done a fine/excellent job so far".

They would be to whom I'm referring. I wish Matthews had asked "How so?" and forced them to admit they are clueless beyond repeating sound bites. And if you looked at the group--almost exclusively white--and other factors, well, there you have it.

Any of the other changes made thus far, such as David Addington or Josh Bolten, are just moving deck chairs on a sinking ship, which would be the same case if John Snow is replaced (and which would be ironic since supposedly the economy is the only good thing going for Bush).

Letting Rummy go might be taken as an admission of error. On the other hand, sticking with Rummy speaks of loyalty - and that will ring virtuous with his loyal, right-wing base.

Agreed. Bush can't replace Rumsfeld, or Rove (or Cheney via resignation for "health reasons"). If Bush "encouraged" any of these key members of his administration to depart, it would be the same as admitting his own agenda has been wrong. Though of course it has been disastrously wrong, also Cheney and Rove are Bush's security blanky. They will all go down together--the Captain unwittingly so.

As for Rove, I remember reading a couple of months ago that it might come to be that he will lose his security clearance (in light of the Plame leaks) and have to resign from his policy-making role. Might that be what his reassignment is about ?

Except it hasn't been announced that he has lost the clearance. There is no policy to make, only to hold on to seats in Congress, otherwise face REAL investigations during the remainder of the term. That's all his "reassignment" is about.

 

[SOS2008]

Bush Taps Snow As New Press Secretary

WASHINGTON Apr 26, 2006 (AP)— President Bush on Wednesday named conservative commentator Tony Snow as White House press secretary...

Snow, a Fox news pundit...has had some harsh things to say about Bush.

As a columnist, Snow has called the president "something of an embarrassment," a leader who has "lost control of the federal budget," the architect of a "listless domestic policy" and a man who has "a habit of singing from the political correctness hymnal."

That's harsh? Try "impeach the treasonous SOB."

Bush shrugged off the criticism. "He's not afraid to express his own opinions," he said of his new spokesman. "For those of you who've read his columns and listened to his radio show, he sometimes has disagreed with me. I asked him about those comments, and he said, `You should have heard what I said about the other guy.'"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1892477

Exactly. Someone who has worked at FOX, the most right-wing propaganda machine of our time, will only "catapult" more of the same as press secretary. Did anyone think BushCo would make any REAL changes? HA! What a great segue for the news: "And now we go to the White House for our daily Snow job."

 

[Astronuc]

Apparently, Tony Snow also worked at the Washington Times, which is owned by the Unification Church ( http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1569 ), generally recognized as a 'right-wing' daily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times

Tony Snow - editor of the editorial page, 1987-1990, at Washington Times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Snow