Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Removing Card from the Deck

One of the reasons George W. Bush exasperates the Beltway Establishment is that he refuses to conform to the conventional wisdom. When the Beltway Mediacrats bray endlessly that you need to shuffle your staff, it is code for "hire some DC insiders to straighten out your problem." No doubt David Gergen stands at the ready. Lloyd Cutler and Clark Clifford can be disinterred. This Bush has refused to do.

But as the old saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. James Baker has long said that the chief of staff job burns you out after about two years. Andy Card has been there for 5 1/2 years, working from 5 am to about 9 pm every day. This tenure has been much longer than average. He probably should have stepped down after the 2004 election. Card gets good marks in a number of areas, less so in others, which, in the grand scheme of things, means that he’s probably done a good job and deserves our gratitude. But it is long past time for him to move on.

But note that Bush is turning to an insider, Josh Bolton, as Card’s replacement. Look for the Mediacrats to say "it isn’t enough."

Discussions - 14 Comments

It’s not enough!


He does listen to people .. so thats bad right? Or something ... See! He really is weak aha ... ?


Anyway I still don’t like him!!!

he is even more liberal than dain/fung.

good,



Heh. More power to him.

Is Bolton a lib?

Thanks for Harriet Miers, Andy. Don’t let the door hit your...


The Beltway establishment wants a nonpartisan Gergen type, sure. But the larger point, that Bush’s WH team is tired and needs to be replaced, is far more plausible. Not to mention, they don’t seem to have done a very good job.

I have no idea whether Bolton will improve things, but I don’t think conservatives will miss Andy Card.
Of course, Bush’s weaknesses are the ultimate problem. Hard to see those getting better no matter how thoroughly the personnel deck is shuffled.

What a disappointment this president has been.

"Thanks for Harriet Miers, Andy. Don’t let the door hit your..."

Thanks for Souter too, you liberal.

Souter, too - how could I have forgotten! The fox has left the henhouse! The wrecker has left the factory! The fifth column... (etc)

I keep thinking about the phrase: "Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic."......

Uhm, Steve, it isn’t just the "mediacrats" saying that it "isn’t enough." It’s the base, the base of the GOP.

I want a thorough staff purge. That communication and political team have allowed this President to enter one political meat grinder with his base after another. How much incompetence can one administration allow, before it spills over to the detriment of the party. Can someone explain to me what a naked careerist such as Meirs is still doing as White House Counsel, {better yet, can someone explain to me the rationality behind such a selection...}.

We need a Conservative crackdown, big time.

I’m surprised Steve at your rather cavalier attitude to the removal of the greatest incompetent in the administration. AND HE KNEW EXACTLY what he was doing when he tried to foist Meirs on the GOP. All of us should still be LIVID over the nomination of Meirs. She was nothing short of an insult to the American Bar, and an insult to the GOP, {not to mention an insult to the Federalist Society}.

Card deserves his share of the blame for many things, but from what a number of insiders have told me, the Miers nomination was not one of them. The press reports are wrong: Bush himself (adn especially Laura Bush) was behind the Miers idea.

It’s kind of strange how you seem to be trying to distance yourself from the DC Establishment/Insiders, yet are simultaneously giving us the exclusive scoop from your secret insiders there...in DC.

Norton,Card,Powelli,Allbright are entering the GOP’s think tank and reserve.
The forthcoming 06 majority and 08 Presidential campaigns should distinguish the front gov trench from the counsellors.

One of the odd things about the commentaries I’ve read is the claim that "Reagan shook up his staff at the beginning of his second term, so that’s what Bush should do." Unless my memory is even worse than I think it is, wasn’t Reagan’s second term a lot rougher than his first? Sure, maybe it might have been rougher still without the shake-up, but do we really know that the policy worked?

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/8329