The wrong spin on the ‘unvarnished’ chat

Yesterday, we learned that the 11 House Republicans met with the president and his senior aides at the White House this week for an “unvarnished” conversation about the administration’s war policy in Iraq. Various media accounts of the 90-minute meeting suggested that the GOP lawmakers are nervous about what the war is going to do to the party’s future.

This certainly wasn’t good news for the White House, but an adept political operation could spin the meeting fairly easily. If I worked for Bush (yes, it strains the imagination), I’d tell reporters that the president enjoyed the frank exchange of views. For all the talk that Bush is in a “bubble,” I’d say, this meeting is proof that Bush takes lawmakers’ concerns seriously, even those who disagree. I’d add that the president always wants to hear from any official who has constructive ideas about this conflict.

Of course, I wouldn’t buy this spin, but it’s not ridiculous. Indeed, Dana Perino was on CNN last night articulating a similar message: “They expressed frustration, because of a lack of progress. The president understands that. He’s right there with them on that. And I think that, if you look at our party, we are ones that like frank exchange of views. We have a big tent. And discussions like this are OK. They’re good to have. And that’s why the president was very happy to have them at the White House.”

See? The meeting was a good thing after all! Or at least it was, right up until the White House started stepping on its own spin.

Top Bush administration officials lashed out at a pair of House Republicans at the White House yesterday after details about a contentious meeting between President Bush and GOP legislators were leaked to the media earlier this week.

The confrontations are the latest indications of an intensifying rift between Bush and congressional Republicans.

Reps. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) attracted the ire of White House officials for allegedly speaking to reporters about a Tuesday meeting between Bush and centrist Republicans on the Iraq war.

Oops.

Apparently, the White House’s frustration with the House Republicans got pretty heated.

Sources said that Dan Meyer, Bush’s liaison to the House, confronted LaHood while White House political strategist Karl Rove rebuked Kirk. It is unclear if LaHood or Kirk were the original sources for the stories, but LaHood was quoted in one of the articles.

Regardless, LaHood and Meyer got into a shouting match as emotions ran high and voices were raised yesterday morning in the White House while lawmakers were waiting to meet with first lady Laura Bush, according to two legislators who witnessed the exchange. LaHood and five other GOP lawmakers met with Mrs. Bush in the Yellow Oval in the White House residence to chat about the No Child Left Behind law.

“The White House is not happy,” said a Republican lawmaker.

No? I thought Dana Perino told a national television audience that the discussion was a “good” thing to have, and that the Republicans should congratulate themselves for having a “frank exchange of views.” Doesn’t the Bush gang want everyone to know about these helpful discussions?

Sounds like the conversation was the equivalent of two opposing groups of chimpanzees screeching and flinging poo at each other.

Oh to be a fly on the wall of the WH.

  • If these were Democrats with Democratic President then the MSN would be reporting this for days.

  • From the NYT:

    Vice President Dick Cheney did not mince words in an interview with the Fox News Channel. “We didn’t get elected to be popular,” Mr. Cheney said. “We didn’t get elected to worry just about the fate of the Republican Party.”

    Oh, really? I thought the goal was a one-party rule!

  • Hmmm Mark Kirk is a fairly centrist Republican. Perhaps thats why Karl went after him..middle of the roaders are not welcome. Also, the Bush administration only sees things in Blue and Red. And Illinois is Blue. Therefore anyone from Illinois must also be Blue, even if they’re wearing an American Flag lapel pin and have other Red credentials.

  • Truer words were never spoken, Beep (#3). Cheney knew well going in that this would be a smash-and-grab presidency, and that popularity is irrelevant. He is only concerned with achieving the goals for this presidency, and his eyes are always fixed on that – exercise control over Iraq and its resources, no matter the cost. In his view, history (heavily influenced by undreamed-of prosperity fueled by endless oil) will forgive. If he even cares about that.

  • This all just seems to me to be more “open mouth-insert foot” antics – not very well thought-out by an of the parites involved.

    If you’re going to leak that you had the balls to have a come-to-Jesus meeting with the president, don’t show the entire country that he made you leave them in the Oval Office while you once again voted for no accountability.

  • “He’s his own man,” said a former senior GOP aide. “A lot of the members and members of leadership say that Ray [LaHood] talks too much.”

    Oh gods, not someone who is own man! Why, he might form opinions that are contrary to Dearanged Leader’s! Oooh, I feel faint.

    Seriously, could someone show me where the Executive Branch is empowered to scold the Legislative Branch for speaking to the press? Pathetic.

    “We didn’t get elected to be popular,”

    Neither were you elected by anything resembling a popular vote kindly go yourself yourself Dick.

  • Gridlock, Mark Kirk is my congressman, here in IL-10. Our district is north from Wilmette on the lake almost to the Wisconsin border and then west a fair amount. Donald Rumsfeld was once this area’s congressman. (Not that anyone brags about it).

    This once-staunch Republican district has been trending Democratic for years. In fact, Kerry bested Bush here in 2004, by about 5 points, with the voters returning “moderate” Kirk to the House.

    He inherited the seat from John Porter, another “moderate” Republican in the year 2000. A “career politician”, Kirk had been Porter’s Chief of Staff. He faced fairly stiff opposition in 2000, but was relected the following two cycles pretty handily, with weak, really weak Democratic opposition.

    Finally, in 2006, we found a fellow called Dan Seals to run against him and commit to running again in 2008 if he didn’t win in 2006. Seals was energetic, the base was ultra-motivated, and he came within 4% of winning the seat from Kirk.

    Kirk is this WASP non-entity, bland, who has retained a “moderate” label while being fourth in the Republican House leadership. There are rumors of his sexual leanings; he’s married, late, no kids. The Democratic base is not making anything of the “rumors”, but it still points up the hypocracy of the Republican politician.

    Kirk has actually received quite a lot of Democratic cross-over votes. The district has a large Jewish bloc, and Kirk has billed himself as “good for Israel”. And, do we know of ANY Democrat who ISN’T “good for Israel”, beginning with Harry Truman?

    In the last election, we worked on “Democrats who had voted for Kirk”. I told my fellow Dems, including my own father, that Kirk might be “moderate”, BUT, because he has an “R” after his name, we Democrats needed him OUT, in order to regain the House. This worked with many Democratic voters, and Seals was a good candidate, who we hope will make the leap in 2008. Incidentally, Rahm and the DCCC gave NO money to the race til the very last week, preferring to concentrate on Tammy Duckworth in the next district over. She lost and we, here in the 10th, could really have used that money for Seals.

    Thanks god, the DCCC has “upgraded” this race for next year and we should see some national funds.

  • I smell “kabuki” here. If Rove does anything to damage the re-elect chances of a single GOP’er, I’ll eat my hat. Dollars-to-donuts the “rebuking” stories are spin to help the 11 “independent”/”centrist” (read “vulnerable”) Repubs establish their anti-Bush creds.

    Look, those guys all *supposedly* shoved Bush’s credibility problem in his face — and yet (a) they didn’t vote in favor of the recent House bill on the war, and (b) there was no angry push-back from the notoriously tetchy, loyalty-first, spittle-flecked Bushies.

    This. Is. All. An. Act.

  • From The Hill’s article linked by CB:

    “And I think a lot of members, when they get into a situation like that, they’re excited about the prospect that they do in fact have an opportunity to speak at liberty with the president, so they do it,” Snow added.

    I’m sure that LaHood was just all flustered at the opportunity to meet Mr. Doucheba-, er, the President, and just couldn’t contain his excitement at explaining to Bush what a thrill it would be to be defeated in November ’08 for supporting his policy in Iraq.

    Tony Snow, my warm and fuzzy feelings for you have come and gone.

  • Wow, the legislators actually had an opportunity to speak at liberty with the president. Now the question is: did he listen?

  • Comments are closed.