In yesterday’s WSJ Fred Barnes made some suggestions for changes in the Bush cabinet.
I concur that some moves would probably be a very good idea, but Barnes, on balance just reshuffles the deck in a way that would interesting to watch, I suppose, but one in which I would question the wisdom of–both in terms of politics and in terms of policy.
A major reason for a cabinet shuffle is to get new blood, and Barnes’ plan simply moves the major players, with a few exceptions.
Here are some of the highlights:
The president’s most spectacular move would be to anoint a presidential successor. This would require Vice President Cheney to resign. His replacement? Condoleezza Rice, whom Mr. Bush regards highly. Her replacement? Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, whose Bush-like views on Iraq and the war on terror have made him a pariah in the Democratic caucus.
The Lieberman move would be quite intriguing, but the Rice to veep move, which at one point I though would be intriguing, I have now decided would not produce what Barnes and many GOP booster would like it to produce, i.e., an heir apparent for the 2008 run for the Republican nomination. Given the way the second term is shaping up, I am not sure that the Republicans should want a clear front-runner to emerge from the Bush administration, insofar as that could ultimately be far more of a detriment in the general election than a bonus–especially if that candidate were to be directly tied to Iraq.
Further, unless Rice really does want to be president, something I think isn’t the case, the move from SecState to Veep would be a demotion. Indeed, it is my impression that she currently has her
“dream job.”
Then, as to Cheney:
Mr. Cheney would probably be happy to step down and return to Wyoming. But it would make more sense for him to move to the Pentagon to replace Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary, a job Mr. Cheney held during the elder Bush’s administration. The Senate confirmation hearing for Mr. Cheney alone would produce political fireworks and attract incredible attention.
First off, Cheney has been even more hawkish than Rumsfeld, first on Iraq, now on Iran–so I am not certain how Cheney to the Pentagon constitutes new blood. And yes, I think that the confirmation hearing would be dramatic, to say the least. It seems to me that this would be a bad move politically, and in terms of breathing new life and a new point of view into our current defense policy. As such, what would be the point?
The Rove suggestion actually makes the most sense:
The trickiest issue is how to handle Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff and political adviser. He is the closest thing to indispensable–on policy as well as politics–at the White House. But any overhaul that didn’t involve him would run the risk of not being taken seriously. The solution is to send Mr. Rove to the Republican National Committee as chairman and bring the current chairman, Ken Mehlman, back to the president’s staff as communications chief. The president lauded Mr. Rove as “the architect” of his re-election in 2004. Now he could be the architect of a Republican comeback in 2006. Mr. Mehlman would sharpen the president’s communication operation. He and Mr. Rove would work together, as they do now.
This is also interesting:
There’s also a natural choice for national security adviser to replace Stephen Hadley. It’s Zalmay Khalilzad, the tough-minded ambassador to Iraq. Once a permanent government is installed there, he could be summoned home.
I really do not know if Khalilzad has the resume for the job or not, as I am not familiar with his career, but it is an interesting proposal, given not only his ethnic background, but his experience in two key areas: Afghanistan and Iraq.
At any rate, I think a shuffle would be a good idea, although Barnes’ suggestions are a tad odd. However, my guess is that no major shake-up will be happening until January 2009.
Sphere: Related ContentThe views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
March 21st, 2006 at 8:51 am
How come no one ever mentions Andrew Card anymore?
If the President is cloistered and out-of-touch, then that is Card’s fault, plain and simple. The chief of staff controls access to the president.
March 21st, 2006 at 10:44 am
Yes I see all all sorts of fun when you try selling a black woman to your base! For the dems it might work, for repugs no chance.
March 21st, 2006 at 11:46 am
Maybe Bush could replace his veep with Condi or some other aspiring Republican and then the Republican party could just plan an assissination conspiracy. Then the new Republican would have 2 years to get the administration back on track before he or she stood for re-election.
I am, of course, kidding. And it strikes me that Barnes might have his tongue slightly in his cheek as well. I didn’t read the whole article, but from what you excerpt and from his opening paragraph, his suggestions seem a bit less than serious. But then again I could be wrong, I ususally am.
March 21st, 2006 at 1:25 pm
I think moving Condi Rice to VP would be a very good move. Even though the administration is on the outs right now, a lot can happen in 3 years. Being assoicated with Bush might be a real positive come 2008. Who knows. I’m speaking as someone who is definitely not an admirer of the Bush administration.
If Bush is still a liability in 2008, what has the party lost? The Republican party has enough disipline to get her to hold back for that electrion and try to run a governor instead. Rice could be picked as his VP. If he loses, she would be in a very good position to run in 2012. But she needs the VP experience to make her viable.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Jan,
He’s serious–I saw him talking about the piece on TV last night.
Pete,
And yes, I think Bush can remain on the outs, and the Reps can still win in 2008 given the electoral map as it currently stands.
March 21st, 2006 at 5:45 pm
If anyone should step aside it should be Bush–since he obviously is so clueless, incompetent, and wholly unable to think critically about the messes he has gotten the country into at this point he needs quit immediately.
The problem, of course, is that his current underlings are equally responsible for the administration’s failings that they need to go also.
Since Bush argues that the laws don’t apply to him, here is what he ought to do: step aside, and say we will have a new presidential election in November and that none of the incompetents from his administration can run. Whoever wins will serve out his term and will be able to run in the next election.
Sure, this plan is unconstitutional, but it certainly will be a better fix than suffling the cabinet or hoping Bush will wake up one day in the next couple of years with a modicum of intelligence.
March 21st, 2006 at 9:22 pm
“…hoping Bush will wake up one day in the next couple of years with a modicum of intelligence.”
Dream on. I had been wondering all along whether the sociopathic behavior exhibited by Bush was the result of faulty brain wiring or whether it was evidence of a serious character flaw. It appears to be the latter.
From AP:
“President Bush said Tuesday that American forces will remain in Iraq for years and it will be up to a future president to decide when to bring them all home. ”
In other words, and true to form for a spoiled, delusional, rich, brat, who has evaded responsibility for his own actions his entire worthless life thanks to Daddy’s cronies, the message is: “let others clean up the mess”.
And that is the “Mensch” that the righties admire!