Bush places a high price on loyalty, as long as it’s loyalty to him

July 1, 2005

For a couple of months, as Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.) openly considered a Senate campaign next year, there were many reports about Harris meeting with Karl Rove about the race. No one was sure, however, whether Rove was offering encouraging words of support or advising her to steer clear of the campaign.

Looking back, it was probably the latter. Harris kicked off her campaign, and almost immediately, the GOP establishment started wooing Florida House Speaker Allan Bense, urging him to take on Harris in a Republican primary. A Harris supporter called it “unconscionable and a stab in the back.”

As far as Harris is concerned, it’s her turn. She wanted to run in 2004, but Bush was worried that Dem turnout would be higher in Florida if her name was on the ballot. The GOP establishment made her an offer: stay out of the ’04 race, and you’ll be the GOP candidate in ’06. Harris agreed, but is learning now that she’s the only one holding up her end of the bargin.

Brian Montopoli explained very well yesterday in Slate that the Bush gang only keeps its word if it’s politically advantageous. As he put it, “Jeb and George W. are apparently kicking Harris to the curb without the slightest reservation.”

[M]any of the people who have stood by the president have been rewarded: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who has been with Bush since he was Texas governor, rose on the strength of his allegiance to the president, as well as his willingness to risk his neck for Bush. Condoleezza Rice went before the 9/11 commission to defend the president during the 2004 presidential campaign, took perhaps the most humiliating hits of her career, and was promptly promoted to Secretary of State.

But Harris is a better test of Bush fealty than Gonzales or Rice. In promoting them, Bush did himself and his party a favor—he put a Hispanic and an African-American into high-profile positions at a time when the party wanted to appear more inclusive. Standing by someone you like when it’s politically expedient isn’t a powerful show of loyalty; standing by someone you owe, regardless of the expediencies, is. Maybe another carrot is being dangled before Harris if she steps out of the Senate race. But if she goes for it, she’s a fool. The evidence suggests her loyalty won’t ever be repaid in kind.

It says a great deal about how the Bush gang approaches the idea of “loyalty.” All Harris did was help steal a presidential election for these guys. In all likelihood, Bush literally wouldn’t even be president right now were it not for Harris’ “help.” Now she’s calling in her favors and the Bush gang doesn’t want to return her phone calls.

For all the talk about the president and his affinity for loyalty, the fact is the Bush gang considers it a one-way street.

…She wanted to run in 2004, but Bush was worried that Dem turnout would be higher in Florida if her name was on the ballot. The GOP establishment made her an offer: stay out of the ’04 race, and you’ll be the GOP candidate in ’06…blockquote>

is there a linkable source for this assertion? Not that I doubt you, CarpetBagger, I just wondered if these deals were ever actually documented.

  • This as my not in Wed political roundup – the only thing I should add is why she (and not just her supporters) is surprised:

    What I want to know is why supporters of Harris are surprised by the GOP tactics. They needed her in 2000 but rewarded her with a congressional seat. Why they thought anything beyond that was necessary means that they haven’t been paying attention. They needed her then – they don’t need her now – what’s to understand.

  • Of course I am surprosed to see a Republican in Florida admit they stole the election…..

    “It’s unimaginable that the White House folks and the National Republican Senatorial Committee would be so disloyal to Katherine Harris, especially after all she has done for the Bush family and the Republican Party,” a Florida political operative who supports Harris said. “It’s unconscionable and a stab in the back.”

  • That’s fine, Edo, I don’t take offense that easy.

    The Harris “deal” in 2004 was widely reported — never directly quoting the participants, just as something GOP officials knew and acknowledged informally. Here’s an example of a mainstream report alluding to the deal.

    Moreover, The Hill had a report this week quoting a Harris supporter in Florida saying, “If it is true [that the establishment is turning on Harris], they should be ashamed and embarrassed, considering she stepped aside at their request for the president and Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) in 2004. It’s her turn.”

  • Ed, you took the words out of my “fingertips.” Hope she decides to turn “state’s evidence” and tell all of the ugly details she knows about how the state’s electoral votes were stolen. Of course, that presumes she has a conscience and isn’t afraid of prison!!

  • The headline of this post should be no surprise to anyone. In the Bush worldview, those who have power rightly command loyalty and respect and wealth from those below. Over human history, this perspective is perhaps the predominant view — though it seems a bit archaic in the 21st century. To expect reciprocity in loyalty is to expect Bush to think like a liberal.

  • Your money is on the dresser. Get out.

    There’s a lot of idiots in the Senate, but why does think she’s entitled to a spot? That’s almost as stupid as expecting loyalty from Dubs.

  • “To expect reciprocity in loyalty is to expect Bush to think like a liberal.”

    In loyalty or anything else. I think the hallmark of this Administration (and much of the world which got it elected) is the old Law of the Jungle, or in its contemporary form “Hooray for me and f*** you.”

    Corporations express dismay that this generation of college students seems to want iron-clad guarantees before they’ll commit to anything long term. These are the same companies that think nothing, nothing at all, of firing older workers and tearing up pensions and moving half a world away for cheap labor. These same people can’t understand the Democrats program for “curing” Social Security because they can’t think in terms of shared risks (i.e., insurance, as the program is formally named), only one’s private return-on-investment (and look the other way when unfortunates fall through the cracks).

    You’d think the corporate folks’ recent shotgun marriage to the Religious Right would have modified their selfish greed somewhat. You know, “brother’s keeper”? “Blessed are the poor”? “Camel through the eye of a needle”? Nope. If anything the Bible-thumpers make it worse: they sanctify greed and hurl anathemas at the poor.

  • Ed – just to change the topic for a moment, your commentary has really added a lot of depth to the comments on this blog. You and several others have become my teachers and you don’t charge near as much as I pay at the university that I go to. Thanks

  • Whew, Ed’s “Law of the Jungle” comment really highlights a growing awareness that’s been bugging me more and more. We’re not dealing with BushCo as much as we are RepubCo. Even Bush would be kicked aside if he were no longer of use.

    I feel like the folks at the top right now aren’t even Americans. They’re just the political operatives of corporate and monied interests that have really, finally, gained so much power that they just use each government official to further their corporate goals. When the person is no longer useful, no matter who it is, they’re gone. Loyalty is certainly for wimps but so is anything beyond calculating what the bottom line use for any individual to RepubCo is.

    The “policies” being put forth by our government these days do not benefit our country. They do benefit corporations over and over. I’ve been trying for awhile to put a foreign face on our leaders to try to understand who they were really representing because they aren’t representing us. But it’s the “foreign nations” in our own midst, Bank of America/MBNA, Exxon, Halliburton, Citibank, that are wielding the power and providing the means for our “elected representitives” to live like kings and princes so long as they toe the line and bring home more power, money and control.

    This certainly isn’t a fresh concept but I think we’re a lot farther down the road in the wrong direction than we should be if we hope to get back before dark.

  • Thanks for the citations, Carpetbagger (and for not being as thin skinned as other bloggers).

  • We’re not dealing with BushCo as much as we are RepubCo. Even Bush would be kicked aside if he were no longer of use.

    Wait ‘til ’06, and incumbents in areas where bush has become weak will cut his throat.

    But hopefully the very loyalty RepubCo. Has been demanding for so long will be used to drive a stake through their collective hearts.

  • I’ll make my wild guess what’s going on here: Rove has tons of inside dirt about Harris and Renzi sneaking away to motel rooms for a little suckee-fuckee during Congressional recesses… and knows that, if he can find out about this, the press certainly can too, and will put out the stories immediately upon her nomination, torpedoing her candidacy. He doesn’t want another Ryan.

    Apparently greed and ambition– like love– conquers all and knows no bounds. So she wants to run anyway.

    Anyway, just a fanciful story, no idea what’s going on over there. But if Rove is trying to primary her, I suspect there’s a huge skeleton in her closet that he thinks could alienate Repug voters and lose him a Senate seat.

  • Actually this is the best case scenario for Katherine Harris. The big anchor around her neck is that she is perceived as an unthinking “yeswoman” for the Bush Bros. this scenario cuts her loose from that anchor at the very moment that Bush and Rove are struggling in the water, themselves. There is a serious fracture developing in the R Party over the continual lack of progress in Iraq and the fact that Zaqwari and Bin Laden continue to thumb their noses at the U.S. It is becoming more and more expedient for R politicians to distance themselves from the mess in respect to thier future. Katherine Harris will become the lightning rod for this disaffection. She is powerful and smart and is a native Floridian, unlike Jeb. She will win that nomination if she runs regardless of what they say. Without having to deal with the baggage of the Bush family and the 2000 election, she will also win the Senate seat.

    • Comments are closed.