Will The Bush Center Hold?
This definitely qualifies as an "uh-oh":
Cap'n Ed thinks this is a good idea. That after the string of fiascos going back to the Hurricane Katrina aftermath, and the erosion of his approval numbers even amongst Republicans from that and the White House's wrongheadedness on illegal immigration and fiscal policy, what is needed is "personnel changes and fresh thinking."
I disagree. First off, there won't be any "fresh thinking" from this President. Five-plus years ought to have made abundantly clear that George W. Bush does not nor is he ever likely to "evolve" or "grow in office." When he's right, we call it "steadfastness," and when he's wrong we call him "stubborn," but the man does not change policy course. To bring about "fresh thinking" would mean a personnel change at the top, and I was under the impression that it was Democrats who lusted after impeachment.
This, in turn, makes personnel changes lower in the food chain almost irrelevant unless it represented a move to get serious about the Bushies' heretofore laughably inept public relations prowess (i.e. follow Bill Clinton's example and campaign 24/7/365). And we know that Dubya will never do that, or he would have been since at least 9/11. The several briefly successful but foolishly truncated attempts at it over the past few months speak volumes.
So, what would re-shuffling the White House staff and Cabinet accomplish? Little or nothing for the President, but quite a bit for the Extreme Media:
J-Ger is right. Change for change's sake is never a good idea, in any aspect of life, but especially not in politics. There must be a practical reason for a shake-down of any magnitude, and the staffing of the White House is not the President's primary problem.
Wanna know what it is? Check back a little bit later for the answer.
The new White House chief of staff put the West Wing and official Washington on notice on Monday about potentially substantial changes in the way the White House is staffed and operates.
Meeting first thing Monday with senior White House aides, the new chief, Joshua B. Bolten, said it was time to "refresh and re-energize" President Bush's team, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, said. Mr. Bolten also said anybody who was considering leaving within the year should step forward now, according to Mr. McClellan's account of the meeting. ...
Senior White House officials had spent months playing down the need for any substantial overhaul of administration personnel. Mr. Bolten's message seemed to suggest that Mr. Bush had now come around to the idea that his presidency needed some fresh faces, if not a fresh start. But it is not yet clear how wide and deep any changes will be, and whether they will portend new policy approaches or be limited to bringing in new voices to sell existing policies.
Cap'n Ed thinks this is a good idea. That after the string of fiascos going back to the Hurricane Katrina aftermath, and the erosion of his approval numbers even amongst Republicans from that and the White House's wrongheadedness on illegal immigration and fiscal policy, what is needed is "personnel changes and fresh thinking."
I disagree. First off, there won't be any "fresh thinking" from this President. Five-plus years ought to have made abundantly clear that George W. Bush does not nor is he ever likely to "evolve" or "grow in office." When he's right, we call it "steadfastness," and when he's wrong we call him "stubborn," but the man does not change policy course. To bring about "fresh thinking" would mean a personnel change at the top, and I was under the impression that it was Democrats who lusted after impeachment.
This, in turn, makes personnel changes lower in the food chain almost irrelevant unless it represented a move to get serious about the Bushies' heretofore laughably inept public relations prowess (i.e. follow Bill Clinton's example and campaign 24/7/365). And we know that Dubya will never do that, or he would have been since at least 9/11. The several briefly successful but foolishly truncated attempts at it over the past few months speak volumes.
So, what would re-shuffling the White House staff and Cabinet accomplish? Little or nothing for the President, but quite a bit for the Extreme Media:
[L]et’s not exaggerate the benefits of “fresh faces.” How much goodwill and good press did Bush get by replacing Andy Card with Bolton? Next to none. The press will treat any personnel change, even the departure of a Cabinet member hated by the media and Administration critics like Rumsfeld, as a sign that the Administration is in disarray, not as a re-energizing burst of new momentum.
J-Ger is right. Change for change's sake is never a good idea, in any aspect of life, but especially not in politics. There must be a practical reason for a shake-down of any magnitude, and the staffing of the White House is not the President's primary problem.
Wanna know what it is? Check back a little bit later for the answer.
posted by JASmius at 7:07 PM
<<< Home