Posted on 10/23/2005 2:37:36 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
We need a fool in the White House.
No, I've not joined the leftist Bush-is-an-idiot crowd. The president is a smart man, but he's in deep trouble. And no one in the White House seems willing to tell him why, which is where an official fool -- or White House jester, if you prefer -- would come in handy. In the Middle Ages, the court fool was often the only person who could point out the king's foibles and live to tell about it. No less than some medieval castle, the White House can become a haven for yes-men (and women) in any administration. Toadyism is an occupational hazard in such a rarified environment, and few are willing to risk their own status and power to tell the boss he's making a big mistake. The latest flap over Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers is a perfect example.
Apparently no one stepped forward to warn the president what a monumentally bad idea he'd come up with when he selected Miers over dozens of other, better-qualified candidates. Karl Rove might have done so in the past, but he's too busy worrying about his own fate in the Valerie Plame leak investigation and may even have lost some of the president's confidence for not admitting his role in the leak earlier. Mrs. Bush might have sounded a cautionary note about the Miers nomination -- except that, according to some sources, she was the one who suggested it in the first place. White House chief of staff Andy Card has the president's trust, but he has never demonstrated a willingness to challenge his boss, not least when the president asked him to vet the Miers nomination. So that left the president on his own, to go with his gut and never look back. And one thing we know about this president is that he doesn't like to admit a mistake.
Instead of listening to what conservatives are actually saying about the Miers nomination, the White House strategy is to attack the critics. We are suddenly the enemy: elitists, sexists, disloyal, and don't really represent anyone anyway. There is no one in the White House who has the nerve to tell the president that he should be worried when Democratic Sen. Harry Reid is more enthusiastic about his nominee than the editors of National Review.
And it's not just the Miers mishap. This White House seems more isolated from the larger world than most. The president brags he doesn't read newspapers. The initial response to Hurricane Katrina suggests he rarely watches television news either. When the president ventures out of the White House bubble, it's usually to return to Crawford or to address a safe, administration-friendly audience. With Republicans in control of both Houses of Congress, the president doesn't even have to meet regularly with members of the opposition party. President Reagan, for example, forged a friendly relationship with one of his chief adversaries, House Speaker Tip O'Neill, but you get no hint that President Bush has done the same. Admittedly, the political atmosphere in Washington has grown more toxic in the last 20 years -- and Democrats are, I believe, largely to blame. President Bush came to office promising to change the climate, but quickly gave up, simply insulating himself from having to deal with it.
It is one thing to cut yourself off from people who don't share your values and aspirations, and quite another to push aside your most faithful allies because you don't like what they have to say on an important issue. The president has surrounded himself with people who tell him what he wants to hear. It's a dangerous practice. As the Fool reminds King Lear in Shakespeare's play:
"That sir which serves and seeks for gain,
And follows but for form,
Will pack when it begins to rain,
And leave thee in the storm."
The president faces rough seas in the days ahead. He'd be wise to heed the Fool's warning.
B.I.N.G.O.
While I agree in general with this article, that was a very different era, with very different players.
Who can imagine Bush getting cozy with Pelosi, Reid or Dean?
Maybe it's a planned failure...If Gonzales is the next nominee, that idea may not seem so far fetched...
Somehow I don't see Bush taking a warning from Buchanan....sorry...couldn't resist.
Gonzales time has passed. Miers has ruined whatever small chance he had. The rats hate him and I don't think Bush would try and ram through another one of his close friends after this debacle.
Why are you posting this sexist, elitist trash from this unknown author? How dare you question the President's decision!
/sarcasm
It's on the to-do list, between 'enforce the borders' and 'reign in spending'.
These things take time.
I think a lot of those fools must hang out here.
Phew...for a moment I thought hugh were being series. And then I read the fine print.
Due to the willingness of the national press corp to exagerrate some stories while burying others, I would say the newspapers, and Washington, are more isolated from the larger world than Bush is.
Go into any bar today and ask the patrons what they think of the President's SC pick. You'll see that we politic inside the bubble also.
I have to chuckle at the "elitist" claim tossed at those opposed to the Miers' nomination since I know of no organization more elitist than the ruling claque at the Texas State Bar.
Schumer on MTP just said "And I agree with my friends on the right, that we need to know Harriet Miers judicial philosophy." Congratulations Far Right...you just sealed for all time the fact that Chucky Schumer is RIGHT to demand to know the nominees philosophy.
Congratulations, Faux Right -- you're sweating blood defending the pro-ICC, pro-quotas SC pick of Senator Harry Reid!
How's it feel to side with Chucky Schumer?
How's it feel to be sucking up alongside Harry Reid?
Harry Reid won't vote for Miers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.