February 19, 2006
Republican Malaise
By Robert
Novak
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- When Dick Cheney finally broke his silence by
answering questions from Fox's Brit Hume last Wednesday, four days
after the hunting accident, many Republicans could hardly believe
it. They were stunned that the vice president indicated he had no
regrets about the way the incident was handled. Every Republican
I contacted had regrets in abundance.
Bush-bashers
delighted in exaggerating Cheney's post-accident conduct as a
metaphor for everything wrong with George W. Bush's presidency
in its sixth year. Nevertheless, there are supporters of the president
(and the vice president, as well) who believe the handling of
the accident does reflect structural problems in the Bush White
House. Those defects were present from the start of this presidency
and remain, in the absence of a basic reconstruction after Bush's
re-election.
Republican
malaise in Washington derives less from anemic poll ratings than
from overriding concern about how the Bush team functions. This
anxiety is enhanced because Republican criticism of the White
House is seen as evidence of disloyalty and consequently discouraged.
A vivid
illustration is provided by Vin Weber, a former congressman who
has been a major player in Republican politics for the past quarter
of a century. While he now is a Washington lobbyist, he has remained
deeply engaged in Republican politics (particularly back in his
home state of Minnesota). Following the 2004 election, Weber was
reported possibly to be coming to the White House as part of a
staff reconstruction. In fact, Weber was willing to accept the
economic sacrifice for him and his family by returning to public
service.
But no call
came from the White House because the president decided to stand
pat in his staffing for a second term. Because Weber always has
been a team player rather than an open-mouthed critic of his own
administration, his comments on page one of last Wednesday's Washington
Post attracted special attention. Weber specifically criticized
Cheney, contending that the disclosure of the accident "should
have been handled differently." In character, the White House
let out the word that such mild criticism put this faithful Republican
out of line.
Actually,
as Weber surely would admit, the problems exposed by the Texas
shooting were no aberration. But instead, they are systemic. Andrew
Card, as Bush's only presidential chief of staff, has had an extraordinarily
long tenure in that post of over five years, but has not dominated
the presidential office in the manner of Sherman Adams and James
Baker. Card always seemed less formidable than Bush political
adviser Karl Rove, who with his additional title of deputy chief
of staff mixes politics and policy.
If that
is not complicated enough, Cheney is unique in the way he fills
his constitutional office. Previous vice presidents either have
been ignored or delegated specific duties, but Cheney is alone
in emerging as an independent power center. A former White House
chief of staff (in the Ford administration), Cheney is at least
the equal of Card and Rove. Under this system, Cheney was able
to keep quiet for 14 hours his accidental shooting of a fellow
hunter.
The result
was a week full of embarrassment and confusion, but the broader
message is a dysfunctional White House that helps bring about
a second term with an unclear domestic agenda and sagging party
morale. Reports surfaced periodically during 2005 that new faces
would appear in the interest of a more orderly, more effective
administration.
Well-placed
Republican sources reported that highly regarded Rob Portman,
who resigned his congressional seat from Ohio to become U.S. trade
representative, would come to the White House as chief of staff
with expanded powers. As 2006 began, it was speculated that after
the budget was presented former Sen. Phil Gramm would walk away
from his lucrative commercial pursuits to become secretary of
the treasury and a major positive force in the administration.
However, talk of Portman and Gramm arriving appears to be wishful
thinking.
The problem
can be seen by the White House last week being more aggravated
by Vin Weber's mild criticism than exposure of a dysfunctional
staff system. The real cause for malaise is fear that the president
will decide it is too late for a second-term reconstruction.
Copyright
2006 Creators Syndicate
