 | Team 41 is a Threat to the Bush Legacy | |
| The Accomplishments of George W. Bush | |
| Declare Victory and Get Out of the Way | |
| Leaders Missing in Iraq War |
| Rising Wage Gap, But No Squeeze | |
| Health Care, Not Social Security, the Third Rail of 2008 | |
| Will Democrats Keep the Faith? | |
| Turning Toward Iran | |
| Can Republicans Count on a House Snapback? |
April 22, 2006
Will The White House Shake-up Matter?
By Tom BevanAfter enduring months of carping by beltway Republicans over falling approval ratings and a string of political missteps, President Bush finally acquiesced three weeks ago to calls to shake up his staff by accepting the resignation of Chief of Staff Andrew Card and replacing him with Joshua Bolten.
Bolten took over the reins last Saturday and, as promised, continued the overhaul at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. On Tuesday, President Bush announced that former Ohio Congressman and U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman will take over as director of the Office of Management and Budget. On Wednesday, Press Secretary Scott McClellan resigned and the White House also announced that Karl Rove will be giving up his role as deputy chief of staff for policy to focus on the upcoming midterm elections. More changes are rumored to be on the way.
But will the changes at the White House matter? Will they breathe new life into a struggling administration and mark the beginning of a Bush comeback? The answer is "probably not." New blood at the White House might improve things for the administration on the margins by rebuilding relations with Congress, tuning up its communications strategy or providing new enthusiasm and a fresh perspective on certain issues, but it is unlikely to generate a significant turnaround.
To understand why, we have to turn to the other big news of the week, which was the one staff change the president made clear he was not willing to make: replacing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Seven retired generals have now come out and publicly called for Rumsfeld's resignation, citing strategic errors in the planning of the Iraq war and an "arrogant" and "abusive" style of leadership. The criticism has set off yet another firestorm about the administration's policy in Iraq and has reignited a debate over the importance of civilian control of the United States military.
Last Friday Bush issued a statement expressing his "full support and deepest appreciation" for Rumsfeld. Again on Tuesday, in an effort to slam the door on any further speculation, Bush testily told reporters gathered in the White House Rose Garden: "I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."
Bush's commitment to Rumsfeld underscores exactly how much his political fortunes are tied to the outcome in Iraq. The war has been and continues to be the defining issue of his presidency, and it casts a huge shadow over the public's perception of the administration's performance across a whole host of issues.
What will help generate a turnaround for the administration is not a shuffling of personnel at the White House or the Pentagon but signs of progress on the ground in Iraq, like the formation of a unity government, continued improvement of Iraqi security forces and, eventually, the start of U.S. troop reductions.
The reality for the president, however, is that to a large degree the situation in Iraq is beyond his immediate control. The die in Iraq is cast, and while the U.S. military is working as hard and as fast as it can to crush the terrorist insurgency and stand up Iraqi security forces capable of protecting its citizens, Bush's fate rests to a large degree in the hands of the Iraqis themselves, and over the last few months their accomplishments have been painfully few. Should that trend continue, the Bush administration is going to struggle to rebound, no matter how much more it shakes up its staff.
| Sponsored Links |
