The Manly Norquist Approach versus the Emasculating Laura Approach

by emptywheel

Ever since reading Steve Soto's post on the WaPo Swagger article, I've been trying to figure out who's out to get Laura. As Steve points out, the passage...

the absence of a "reelection target" and pressure from first lady Laura Bush and others to soften his second-term tone conspired to temper Bush's swagger

...sure sounds like an accusation that Laura has emasculated Bush.

Hell, the press is making Bush out to be a cartoon character who needs to go to a military base to regain his image, while top Republicans are openly blaming Laura Bush for neutering her husband.

[snip]

It must be fun around the house now, with a top Republican saying openly that Laura's got Bush's balls in her pocket. If Skippy wasn't drinking before, he is now.

The thing is, this sounds like more than a throwaway comment. After all, it's a pretty damning statement, especially coming from an operative of a Republican Party that has invested so much time and money into cultivating the image of Bush as a manly man. My guess is it marks the opening of a real split within Republican strategy.

At first, I thought this person was surely Cheney or Rummy, since they're so fond of waggling their manhood in front of journalists. But then I saw the cryptic way the WaPo article refers to this guy (perhaps not surprisingly he is marked as a guy by the use of the pronoun "he"):  "top Republican close to the White House since the earliest days," "GOP operative," "this official" and realized neither Dick or Rummy would qualify. I take the WaPo's description to mean this guy:

• Is not in the White House (since they don't label him as a WH official and instead say he's close to the White House)
• Has some kind of official position (because they label him an official)
• Is a stalwart Republican
• Is either a member of the Texas mafia or the guys who funded Bush from the start

Now, I'd welcome some corrections to that last bullet, because I don't think it includes all the possibilities. But taking those as the possibilities, I think Mr. Manly Republican might be:

• Newt (mostly because he'd fit the senior Republican close to at least Cheney's part of the WH and because he seems to be saying some pretty critical things of late)
• Norquist (not in the White House, undoubtedly powerful and associated with the Party, someone who has bankrolled Bush for some time)
• DeLay (not in the White House, an official if you call Majority Leader an official, and a member of the Texas mafia)

Again, this list is not comprehensive. The WaPo seems to have gone to great lengths to describe this anonymous official, and I'm sure with your help we might be able to narrow it down.

But when I read this article about Republican angst over spending issues, I think my guess that it's Norquist might be close. We're in the process of seeing those who consider themselves true conservatives balk loudly at BushCo calls to rebuild the Gulf Coast. And since Tom DeLay's Texan Republican Majority (TM) relies on two of the districts that, post-Rita, will benefit from Bush's munificence, the Republican leadership is going to solidly back the big spending. Well hell, they would anyway, given that they're basically in it for the pork; but Rita has added new incentives. Tom DeLay has even started channeling Republican bete noir John Maynard Keynes when he asserts,

The bill creates hundreds of thousands of jobs. It's an economic engine.

So unless China or Saudi Arabia decides to just give us $200 billion to fund our new expenditures, we're going to see ongoing contention between the conservatives and the Republicans (and, perhaps finally, we'll have a public recognition that they have not been the same thing for several years).

I'm just guessing, of course, that it was a leading "conservative" as opposed to a Republican who insinuated that Laura is emasculating Bush. But we may see this split increasingly expressed in gendered terms. Big spending? Weakness. Femininity. Nurturing. Bad Bad Bad. Laura transformed from a Stepford wife into Jane Fonda overnight...

And what would be a more ironic outcome than to have the Daddy-Party Republicans taken down by the inner "effeminateness" of their own big spending?

One more thing. I'm curious about who's out after Laura because, in almost all plausible cases, there would be more to the story. Is it Grover? Cheney? DeLay? In all three cases, there's a good chance there'd be an underlying cause or two adding to the divisiveness. That is, it's not just fiscal issues ripping the Republicans apart. It's also the awareness that all its top leaders are facing some unpleasant legal issues right now. And as I have repeatedly suggested, it seems like their attempts to form a unified front to combat those legal issues have failed.

No matter who made that misogynistic comment about Laura, I think one thing is clear. Their unity is beginning to crumble. I just hope they don't ruin the country as they go about crumbling.

Comments

[Davis X. Machina]

Is Don Evans still in the loop?

Texan, Bushie from way back, cabinet secretary....

[Meteor Blades]

Since omerta died with Sammy the Bull (or was it John Dean?), anybody who thinks a united front is possible when the slammer beckons hasn't read enough history.

But, gosh darn it, emptywheel, I want more speculation about whatever precisely it might be that has whoever it might be gunning for Laura. Is one or more of the folks you mention - and those who go unmentioned - wanting the president to exercise a swaggering diversionary tactic to take the heat off legal problems for various players? Attack Iran, say? And they think Laura is telling Dubya to forget it? Or is she cutting back on the red meat served at dinner to keep the testosterone flow in check?

[emptywheel]

Machina:

Why do you think Evans would turn? More importantly, why would he think BushCo were incompetent to start? That would implicate him, wouldn't it?

MB:

One of the reasons I thought it was DeLay is because he was pushing for a solid defense of TRMPAC and Abramoff. And BushCo has tried to distance themselves somewhat. The reason I thought it was Dick or Rummy is because they believe if you just brazen through everything, you'll never be caught (exhibit A: Dick's ongoing assertions of a link between 9/11 and Saddam).

Basically, I think there's a difference over how you defend yourself. Laura's basher thinks you do it by intimidating the attacker. BushCo is trying to take a less confrontational view to perhaps (I wager) save themselves. Maybe even save Rove.

Add in strongly held beliefs about money and unstated beliefs about race, and you've got the makings of misogyny.

[ScientistMom in NY]

I don't see the remarks as being aimed at Laura, but at W. In he-man land, saying that someone is under his wife's thumb (there's a vulgarism that is more precise, but I hate it and refuse to use it) is the worst sort of insult. The unnamed Republicans are publicly insulting Bush; one question is whether anyone will have the nerve to tell W about it. The fact that they insulted him this way, rather than simply pointing out that the man is a buffoon, implies that the goal is to goad him into an aggressive act.

What a way to run a country.

[Meteor Blades]

So, I guess, ScientistMom, that calling him a "Girly Man" was out of the question.

[Mimikatz]

Not Cheney, I think. Wasn't he having surgery? Not Rumsfeld. He is sort of out of the loop but Bush won't let him resign. One of those emininces grises whose names I forget. The James Baker types, but close to Bush II.

And as for the MO? Could it have been Rove himself? Someone who thinks that being under the "little woman's" thumb is an insult? Where have I heard that before? Or maybe it IS Cheney. Isn't he mulling a run as the only one who could keep the string going, as Frist and the others prove to be empty suits?

[dksbook]

I'm thinking it may be a jealous closeted gay Eminence Grise - say, a Rove? Somebody who fell in love with George when he picked W up at the airport for DaddyBush, and fell in love with the bomber-jacket wearin' cowboy? But, Rove is in the WH, so I guess it wouldn't be him...But this is fun dish, anyway.

[emptywheel]

Couldn't be Rove. Let me include a bigger quote:

"A reelection campaign was always the driving principle to force them to get things together," said the GOP operative, who would speak candidly about Bush only if his name was not used. He said the "brilliance of this team" was always overstated. "Part of the reason they looked so good is Democrats were so discombobulated." Since the election, this official said, White House aides reported that Laura Bush was among those counseling Bush to change his cowboy image during the final four years.

Rove might be self-hating. But not so much he would refer to "them" as over-rated in terms of brilliance, nor woudl he need to ask White House aides what is going on.

Then again, my three choices probably wouldn't have to rely on aides either.

[YK]

As a matter of curiosity, in the paragraph you quoted, is being a "GOP operative" consistent with being an "official"? I always thought an operative was someone who worked for the party, as distinct from a government official. Maybe referring to him as "this official" was just a careless error?

[emptywheel]

YK

I think they're different, too. But I also think Norquist might qualify for both. He's clearly an operative of the GOP. But he's an official--he has some title somewhere doesn't he? Wednesday lunch host?

[Mimikatz]

Norquist doies sound like a good bet. Host of the Wednesday group or else it is some prayer breakfast deal. Norquist is someone who has an independent base that predates Bush. He would have found Bush a "useful idiot" I believe is the phrase. But he has now outlived his usefulness.

I read a profile of Norquist some time ago--in the new Yorker, I believe. Sort of an ascetic guy in terms of how he lives. Or lived. Probably a bit higher on the hog now. VERY single minded about acquiring power and drowning the gov't. No feeling for others.

[4jkb4ia]

President of Americans for Tax Reform or some such thing.

[anon]

I'll just bet that whoever it is also thought it would be a really neat-o idea to tar Wilson as a guy leaning on his wife.

[Lame Man]

I'm not going to make a guess about who the "anony-mouse" is. I'm not going to argue that it isn't Norquist. But I am going to argue with the reasoning for thinking it's him.

He is being credited in this post and in the comments as a "real conservative." But please don't forget, his name is involved in the Abramoff scandal. He probably has been directly involved in creating and managing the current pay-to-play Congress.

I think that his involvement in our modern day, Tammany Hall: DC, trumps his credentials as a small government conservative.

[emptywheel]

Good point, Lame Man.

But isn't there a difference between pay to play and pay to pork? I mean, it's easy for Norquist, not having any constituency beyond business (if that's who his constituency is--I think it's more narrow than that).

But if Republicans lose their fiscal conservative "brand" then Norquist stands to lose his center of power.

[Lame Man]

Thinking about branding makes my head hurt. I mean, there is usually very little distinction made beyond "liberal" and "conservative." Anyone who is paying attention realizes that the current government is not really fiscally conservative. That label may have helped get the Republicans and Norquist into power, but they ain't walking that walk now.

Further, they have used that power and attempted to create the "permanent Republican majority." And they have not been afraid to bend or break the rules to achieve that.

Hopefully, Norquist and the rest of these guys will becoming well acquainted with the justice system soon, and this will all be academic.