Sometimes, the Bush gang really does resemble a jukebox that only plays one song. Karl Rove, for all of his alleged genius, has decided what the [tag]White House[/tag] really needs to do is — surprise, surprise — move to the right and placate the GOP base.
Republicans close to the White House say Mr. Rove has been arguing that the White House needs to shore up its standing with conservatives, whose support will be crucial to rebuild Mr. Bush’s popularity and ultimately give him some leverage.
Reflecting that strategy, Mr. [tag]Bush[/tag] sent Congress a slate of conservative judicial nominees, which was taken as a provocation by Democrats who had previously rejected them. A close associate of Mr. Rove’s suggested that the strategy was first to placate conservatives, then tack to the middle to strike deals with Democrats on immigration reform or Social Security.
It seemed like only two weeks ago when “bi-partisanship” was the buzz word. Oh wait, it was only two weeks ago. Since then, the White House has shown its commitment to the notion of working with congressional Dems by thumbing its nose at the new majority party, all because Karl Rove thinks Bush should “shore up his standing with conservatives.” Here’s my question: doesn’t Rove always think Bush should “shore up his standing with conservatives”? When has Rove failed to advise Bush to “shore up his standing with conservatives”?
Meet the new Bush White House, same as the old Bush White House….
As the NYT noted, this isn’t necessarily about legislation, per se; it’s more about personnel appointments and nominees sent to the Senate for confirmation. In this respect, the last 11 days have been the worst since Bush first started shaping his cabinet six years ago.
Consider the tale of the tape:
* [tag]John Bolton[/tag] was re-nominated to the United Nations, despite (or, perhaps, because of) Dems’ strong objections.
* [tag]Ken Tomlinson[/tag] was re-nominated as chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, despite his comically ridiculous tenure thus far.
* A series of far-right judicial nominees, including Terrence Boyle, William G. Myers III, and William J. Haynes II, were re-nominated, even though the White House knows the Dems vehemently oppose their nominations.
* Bush appointed [tag]Eric Keroack[/tag] as the new chief of family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services, despite the fact that he apparently believes that the distribution of contraceptives is “demeaning to women.”
* [tag]Andrew Biggs[/tag], a zealous advocate of privatizing Social Security, was nominated to serve as the next deputy commissioner of Social Security, just a few days after Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson pledged to try and “build a consensus” on the issue.
In each instance, the White House had a choice: nominate/appoint a partisan hack and raise the ire of congressional Democrats, or tap a qualified person that befits the “bi-partisan” rhetoric. Guess which direction Bush chose?
This isn’t “sending a signal”; this is pasting a message on a billboard. Bush will approach governing just as he always has — in the most divisive, bitter, and partisan fashion possible. Raise your hand if you’re surprised.