by emptywheel
Rove's bed is not even cold and already Ed Gillespie is crawling into it.
Now, with the departure of Karl Rove, the president's closest adviser, Gillespie, 46, a former lobbyist and Republican National Committee chairman, has once again been asked to help fill the void.
White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten has said that he plans to divide Rove's broad political and policymaking duties -- and the 60 or so White House staffers who report to him -- among several top aides. But Bolten has yet to decide how to distribute Rove's responsibilities.
Still, it appears that Gillespie will emerge as the first among equals. He is likely to be called on to handle political strategy and message management for the president, becoming the dominant voice in determining where and how often Bush appears and what he says during the final 17 months of his tenure.
Well, that's might curious. After all, this is the second "irreplaceable" long-time Bush associate that Gillespie is replacing; Gillespie took over Dan Bartlett's duties after Bartlett unexpectedly left. That's a whole lot of irreplaceable that Gillespie has replaced.
Which leads me to ask, once again, why Gillespie?
The news reports rehearse several aspects of Gillespie's experience: head of communications for the 2000 recount, support for the Roberts and Alito nomination battles, lie and forgetfulness coach for Alberto Gonzales' appearance before Congress.
Somehow, though, news reports always miss one of the most important things Gillespie has done for the Bush Administration: overseeing the New Hampshire phone-jamming damage control.
Why bring back a guy who, when the Republicans were about to get caught for illegally tampering with an election, played the fix-it and firewall role perfectly (well, kinda). I'm speaking, of course, about the New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal, in which Gillespie took all responsibility for the decision to pay James Tobin's legal bills, even though it's fairly clear the White House (the same White House that Tobin had called repeatedly during his phone-jamming operation) bought off on the decision too.
[snip]
Which all suggests a guy like Gillespie could come in handy again, now that the Judiciary investigations have nowhere else to go but to Karl Rove, Scott Jennings, the recently-departed Sara Taylor, and the long-departed Harriet Miers (presumably some of the same folks who signed off on paying Tobin's legal bills). After all, it's just about the same kind of issue, right? Trying to explain away the calls people like Pat Rogers or Allen Weh made to the White House to fire USAs because they wouldn't tamper with elections? Trying to explain away the increasingly apparent plan to use the Justice Department to interfere with elections? It will all seem so familiar to Gillespie.
Particularly given the multiple possibilities that Rove left three steps ahead of the sheriff, I think Gillespie's past work for the Administration may come in very handy.
In the meantime, the WaPo report on this appears to reveal that Gillespie was responsible for the Administration's latest bit of selective declassification.
One change prompted by Gillespie is for Bush to offer more specifics when he talks about the biggest issue of his presidency: Iraq.
A speech that Bush delivered in Charleston, S.C., last month, in which he declassified some judgments made in intelligence reports to argue that the group al-Qaeda in Iraq was the same as the larger al-Qaeda network, was part of that effort. Broader speeches diluted Bush's message, Gillespie and other aides concluded. By focusing speeches on a single argument, such as al-Qaeda's connections in Iraq, aides hope to sharpen the president's influence on the public debate. [my emphasis]
That's nice. Just what we need. Another guy selectively declassifying just the information that'll make good propaganda.
EW,
Rove is gone a-roving but you girl, don't let go! You keep me/us going! And thanks for Sara's historical posting. We know what happens to those who forget history. May those who remember it can in fact change it.
Posted by: BlueStateRedhead | August 16, 2007 at 09:46
Well, that's might curious. After all, this is the second "irreplaceable" long-time Bush associate that Gillespie is replacing; Gillespie took over Dan Bartlett's duties after Bartlett unexpectedly left. That's a whole lot of irreplaceable that Gillespie has replaced.
Well, with that many "duties" 1) it will be easier to put forward the "I was too busy" Scooter Libby defense; and 2) it makes "I don't recall" a lot [snark] more credible.
Posted by: Mauimom | August 16, 2007 at 09:49
Which leads me to ask, once again, why Gillespie?
Maybe Bush/Cheney are running out of loyalists, and the pickin's are getting slim?
Posted by: pol | August 16, 2007 at 10:14
Marcy, you're right on the mark regarding Gillespie and the NH phone jamming. I find it all the more bizarre that they would pull him in so deep when all signs just a year ago pointed to Abramoff cash funding the NH operation. I guess they know just how far Bill Welch and the Office of Public Integrity will go on the Abramoff case, and feel Gillespie is safe. If that's true, it's probably safe to take Norton off indictment watch as well.
All so depressing. Time to go back into my cave and keep studying for the Sept. LSATs.
Posted by: MB Williams | August 16, 2007 at 11:18
They don't care. They know the phone-jamming story won't go beyond a few of us bloggers and a couple of alt-press articles that will be read by the people (us) who already know they're crooks. The media hates these kind of stories--too complicated, too negative against the corporate owners, likely to make the mass market switch channels for whatever show is showing the latest drunken-while-sexy celeb---and won't cover it.
(And Iraq and the collapsing economy (that's really actually doing great!) make everything else look small.)
So what's to lose?
Sigh. The slow motion train wreck that has become our country continues.
Posted by: marksb | August 16, 2007 at 11:45
Marcy,
You are consistently out ahead of the pack on most stories and quality analysis. Thanks.
Posted by: hmbnancy | August 16, 2007 at 11:51
No one is irreplaceable.
No one is unforgettable except the very top guy. The rest are just footnotes.
e.g. Rumsfeld.
Rove is next, and then ..., but that is out of school.
Posted by: Jodi | August 16, 2007 at 12:07
Well, I have to wonder again if Gillespie might be Novak's "leading Republican." The sentiment Novak cites would fit in well for a guy whose job is deflecting investigations.
Posted by: Redshift | August 16, 2007 at 12:22
Redshift, I went back and read EW's Novak post again. That line,
No wonder that a leading Republican has been asking around whether ferocious Democratic partisans in Congress might ease up if Rove were no longer there to kick around.
Pisses me off and pretty much says it all: The Repubs think that if the Dems don't have the Rove object in front of them, they'll lose interest. (As if we managed to pull off any kicking of Rove's fat pasty-white behind anyway!)
Can they really think Democratic leaders are that stupid/vapid/superficial/your-insulting-term-here? That we'll think the enemy has left the battlefield and we can relax and have another brie-laden cracker and a chilled glass of chardonnay?
I'm not sure which is more insulting to this life-time progressive dem (who prefers a frosty Anderson Valley IPA): the simple-minded assumption voiced by Novak that we'll pack the tent up and go home or the fact that I actually stopped and thought about our leadership and if they would continue the battle.
On the other hand, this would confirm the Bush-as-God trip the GOP has been on---they assume the guy's not only Right, he's untouchable. We shall see.
OK, back to work!
Posted by: marksb | August 16, 2007 at 13:44