Reality-Challenged President Continues to Embarrass GOP

by DemFromCT

The hierarchical Republican party has an especially difficult time when its leaders screw up. Used to following lock-step and doing what it's told (Chuck Hagel is a rare exception, McCain is not), the GOP was tongue-tied when Denny Hastert looked the other way during the Mark Foley scandal, was silent when Tom DeLay was forced out for myriad examples of aggression and poor judgment, and now is reduced to making anonymous remarks to the press while Republican George W. Bush, the GOP president, continues to preside over an adminiistrative debacle in the WH that they define as superior management. Today, for example, we have the twin stories of Alberto Gonzales and Vietnam Iraq:

One senior Republican Congressional aide at work in Washington on Monday, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, called Mr. Bush’s statement that his confidence in Mr. Gonzales had grown after his testimony “curious”; another senior Republican aide asked, “Was he watching the same hearing as everyone else?”

White House officials were confronted Monday with questions about whether Mr. Bush’s statements of confidence would ultimately be followed by a resignation, with reporters recalling that Mr. Bush had pledged support for Donald H. Rumsfeld shortly before his ouster as defense secretary. “He’s staying,” the White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said of Mr. Gonzales in one such exchange on Monday morning.

along with

In a tough attack on Mr. Bush in which he accused the president of being in denial on conditions in Iraq, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said the legislation would provide “a way forward,” combining the withdrawal timetable with benchmarks to measure the progress of the Iraqi government.

“No more will Congress turn a blind eye to the Bush administration’s incompetence and dishonesty,” Mr. Reid said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center here.

Republicans accused Democrats of overstepping their constitutional authority and micromanaging the war. And they noted that the legislation would require a pullout whether or not the Iraqis were making progress in stabilizing their country.

Do Republicans really think Iraq is magically going to morph into 'victory' for our side or that the civil war there is somehow going to go away? Do they really think the American public, sick of this war, will support their non-reality parallel universe? Do they really think things will look 'better' in 2008? Do they really think the hard core Republican base, still fighting the Vietnam War in their heads, is all that matters (hint to the press: the GOP base is a minority of votes and opinion, so start treating them as such).

As William Arkin writes on washingtonpost.com:

One has to wonder whether the war wouldn't have gone differently, and whether we wouldn't be having a different debate today, if the U.S. military and the administration themselves had a more clear understanding of who they were fighting and what they were fighting for.

Because they didn't, there's little reason to believe they can develop that understanding now.

It starts by facing reality. Given the current kabuki over the failed Gonzales tenure at DOJ (see Andrew Cohen for more), orchestrated by the failed President, it seems apparent the current GOP leaders in DC are lacking the reality gene. They' re more likely than not to find in 2008 that America is going to hold that against them. For the GOP, that's reality, and likely to be a very rude awakening.

 

Comments

[DemFromCT]

I know plenty of small-government main street GOPers who cringe at the mention of Bush's name. They 'get' what the national press does not.

[DemFromCT]

Peter Canellos in the Boston Globe writes about the need for AG to stay as AG.

[demtom]

Canellos' point is obviously one factor arguing against Gonzales' departure, but another is the stark belief among some in the administration that, if they choose not to acknowledge a certain fact, that fact will not quite become reality. We (the 60-or-so percent of now-solid opposition) may view this as insanity, but the administration has some record of success in pushing non-reality forward -- most notably their "we won fair and square" insistence after the 2000 election, but also their refusal to label any high-level fall guy for Abu Ghraib. Most reporting says they think Rumsfeld's refusal to step down in Spring '04 prevented Abu Ghraib from seeming an even bigger scandal, and, given the thin re-election margin that fall, may have actually been the biggest reason there was a Bush term II. I'm not saying that's true, but I'm certain it's what they believe.

The problem for them, of course, is that while tiny slivers of meta-reality may be possible to maintain for short periods, in the long run, reality breaks through (which I guess is almost a paraphrase of Lincoln's "You can fool some of the people...") Rove et al. never understood that they won in '04 not because of assorted chimera like gay marriage, but because a 100% united party and a lack of recession were just enough to help an incumbent president barely hold onto his job. This has to be why they could look at the dismal situation (and data) throughout '06, and still believe they were going to hold onto Congress -- their mastery of ridiculous media imagery hadn't lessened much, and, since that's what they thought had brought them triumph in the past, they naturally expected it to carry the day once again (even some Democrats fearfully believed they were right).

The reality is, reality matters. Facts on the ground determine more electoral outcomes than people (esp. Washington journalists) seem to acknowledge. This is why '06 was a banner Democratic year, and also why, for all the fluffing Rudy (or McCain, or Thompson) will get from the Chris Matthews bloc over the next 18 months, the GOP is in dire shape for the 2008 presidential and Congressional elections. Everything I know about politics tells me any Democratic presidential candidate will be a prohibitive favorite, and that Congress is likely to turn even more blue. But members of the GOP Congressional delegation seem either unable to grasp that, or at a total loss about how to stop the tide. From my point of view, it's fun to watch -- though the agony the country's going through is a high price to pay in exchange.

[demtom]

Canellos' point is obviously one factor arguing against Gonzales' departure, but another is the stark belief among some in the administration that, if they choose not to acknowledge a certain fact, that fact will not quite become reality. We (the 60-or-so percent of now-solid opposition) may view this as insanity, but the administration has some record of success in pushing non-reality forward -- most notably their "we won fair and square" insistence after the 2000 election, but also their refusal to label any high-level fall guy for Abu Ghraib. Most reporting says they think Rumsfeld's refusal to step down in Spring '04 prevented Abu Ghraib from seeming an even bigger scandal, and, given the thin re-election margin that fall, may have actually been the biggest reason there was a Bush term II. I'm not saying that's true, but I'm certain it's what they believe.

The problem for them, of course, is that while tiny slivers of meta-reality may be possible to maintain for short periods, in the long run, reality breaks through (which I guess is almost a paraphrase of Lincoln's "You can fool some of the people...") Rove et al. never understood that they won in '04 not because of assorted chimera like gay marriage, but because a 100% united party and a lack of recession were just enough to help an incumbent president barely hold onto his job. This has to be why they could look at the dismal situation (and data) throughout '06, and still believe they were going to hold onto Congress -- their mastery of ridiculous media imagery hadn't lessened much, and, since that's what they thought had brought them triumph in the past, they naturally expected it to carry the day once again (even some Democrats fearfully believed they were right).

The reality is, reality matters. Facts on the ground determine more electoral outcomes than people (esp. Washington journalists) seem to acknowledge. This is why '06 was a banner Democratic year, and also why, for all the fluffing Rudy (or McCain, or Thompson) will get from the Chris Matthews bloc over the next 18 months, the GOP is in dire shape for the 2008 presidential and Congressional elections. Everything I know about politics tells me any Democratic presidential candidate will be a prohibitive favorite, and that Congress is likely to turn even more blue. But members of the GOP Congressional delegation seem either unable to grasp that, or at a total loss about how to stop the tide. From my point of view, it's fun to watch -- though the agony the country's going through is a high price to pay in exchange.

[demtom]

Sorry - didn't mean to post twice.

[Dismayed]

Certainly 08 will turn congress more blue. Tons of GOPers up for election, and they have done jack shit to fix the mess they largely made. Voters are way off to the GOP

However, I don't think it's a lack of grasp. Thinking back to an old old EW post, wherein she speculated that the GOP actually recruits people of questionable ethics -- for control, or just because they need people with moral flexibility to carry out their plans. (my own opinion is that people who love money just have a lower moral standard in the first place and the republican machine is at it's heart a money cult) Anyway, I agree that the GOP under kkkarl seeks out the compromised.

Thus, by extension would they not seek to compromise all that they could as well? I think many of these GOP senators, even perhaps many of the ones who were clean when kkkarl came to town, now have something held over their heads. They know that if they voice or vote descent kkkarl with sneak a scandal out on them and throw them to the wolves.

Thus their position is probably to keep the head down and hope to ride out the voters, rather than face the certainty that kkkarl will expose them to jail time.

[DemFromCT]

Here's more from John Dean (HT Melanie for the link).

The GOP Presidential Standard for Protecting Cronies: Why Gonzales Won't Be Fired, Despite Not Being Up to the Job

Gonzales's testimony had to leave all listeners - that is, all but the blindly partisan, to whom denial is second nature -- with the understanding that he is simply not up to the job. While Gonzales all but concedes the incompetence with which the removal of the U.S. Attorneys occurred, he somehow seems to think he has all else under control. Yet he could not even competently explain what had happened to these federal prosecutors he fired, or why they were fired.

Notwithstanding the lack of support Gonzales has in the Congress, and the damage he is causing the Bush Administration, he is not going to resign, and Bush is not going to fire him. Rather, Bush is going to, in effect, create a new, and far lower, standard for acceptable conduct by attorneys general. Bush is openly embracing the "Peter Principle" - the management theory that says that, as people within an organization advance to their highest level of competence, they will then be further promoted to, and remain at, a level at which they are incompetent. This has clearly occurred with Alberto Gonzales.

I have varying degrees of knowledge about virtually all of the modern Attorneys General, or those who have served over the past five decades -- the seventeen men and one woman who preceded Gonzales in the office he now occupies. They were all highly competent and able people. I cannot recall, nor find any evidence, that Congress ever questioned the competence of any of these former attorneys general. While Congress did not always agree with their policy decisions, no one thought these prior attorneys general were out of their league, nor that they were damaging the Justice Department by their inept management.

As a former Department of Justice official, I find what Bush and Gonzales are doing to this once proud and independent department quite sad.

[freepatriot]

I just saw dead eye dick cheney attacking Senator Reid

that's gonna help increase Senator Reid's popularity

maybe dead eye dick doesn't get it

when you're the most hated man in America, a personal attack from you is an ENDORSEMENT

keep up the good work, mr 22% popularity rating

the reality based community needs all the help it can get, so you just keep on talking me cheney

[MarkusQ]

Hagel can afford to be out of lockstep. Never forget how he got in the game to begin with: he was the surprise winner in an election where all the votes were counted on voting machines manufactured by his company--after a state law had been passed making hand recounts illegal. He got a slap on the wrist for hiding his connection to the company (he was CEO at the time of the election, but it didn't come out until later).

This is not meant as a defense of McCain (who is pathetic, washed up tool) but rather to sound a cautionary note about someone who may prove to be a greater threat in the years to come. Hagel may well be the point man for the new post neo-con team, lying in wait to play the same games with clean hands and fresh faces.

--MarkusQ

[freepatriot]

btw, there were three repuglican senators standing behind dead eye dick (don't they know that's his kill zone ???), and they didn't really look happy to be there

mcconnell was the middle man (and he's on the menu in 2008). lott was on the right, and I can't quite name the guy on the left, but he had some great NERVOUS eye movements going on as cheney blathered on

and continuing the observations:

I saw Reid's response, and it wasn't memorable, except for the opening. The pugalistic Senator keeps sticking that "THE PRESIDENT IS DELUSIONAL" jab into the presnit's face

[freepatriot]

yo, MarkusQ:

Hagel may well be the point man for the new post neo-con team

or he might just be toast

Mr Hagel is "On The Menu" in 2008, and IIRC, he's behind in a poll against a potential Democratic opponent

I could be wrong about that, but I'm pretty sure it was Hagel (it was about two weeks back)

george bush is hanging around repuglicans' necks like a dead chicken

and george ain't going anywhere

[MarkusQ]

What raises my hackles is that Hagel always seems to be polling behind his opponent, and then he wins anyway, with the votes always counted by tabulators produced by his old company. The first time he won, a local paper reported that it was amazing because more people voted for him than had even heard of him three weeks before the election, according to the paper's polls. CNN, IIRC, referred to it as "a stunning upset".

That, and he has been positioning himself as the anti-Bush Republican since practically the day he set foot in DC. He's probably the one Republican that doesn't have Bush hanging around his neck, and it sure looks like he's been planing it that way for the last five years or more.

Yes, he may be toast. Or he may be our next fearless leader (meet the new boss, same as the old boss) waiting patiently in line until they squeeze the last drop of usefulness out of Bush and Cheney. There he'll be, all queued up with clean hands and a spotless record...

--MarkusQ

[Melanie]

Hey, Dem, how about a link, since I did the heavy lifting for you?

[Publicus]

Actually, Cheney hasn't embarrassed the GOP. The GOP is incapable of being embarrassed, no matter what they do. Isn't it obvious?