The tears of a clown

By Ellen Ratner
President Bush gave a short stand-up comedy speech at the Radio TV Dinner last week in Washington, D.C. He delivered funny line after funny line: ”Well, where should I start? A year ago, my approval rating was in the 30s, my nominee for the Supreme Court had just withdrawn, and my vice president had shot someone. Ahhh, those were the good old days.” His delivery was impeccable. The hard-core Democrats and Republicans I was sitting with were on the floor with laughter. So, how is it that President Bush is both the funny, open guy we saw Wednesday night and the insular president who has a hard time negotiating and listening?

I am not sure I have the answer to that question, but what we continue to learn is disturbing. It isn’t good for the country and it certainly is not going to help President Bush’s legacy. Yesterday it was reported that Matthew Dowd, an adviser and trusted Bush inner-circle member, had gone public with his criticism of the president. Dowd began his career as a Democrat and became very enamored of then Gov. Bush’s ability to work with both sides of the political spectrum and believed the governor was truly a Texas ”uniter not a divider.” Something happened when he got to the White House said Dowd that raises concerns that have been floating around the Republican Party and the White House Press room for a while.

Dowd brings up the president not holding people accountable. This is not exactly breaking news, but it may be helpful to illuminate a few examples, and there have been glaring issues around accountability. Dowd mentions Secretary Rumsfeld as an example, particularly after Abu Ghraib. The American public knows of many more incidents, from Katrina to Guantanamo to what we are now seeing with the firing of the U.S. attorneys.

It was also revealed this week that Karl Rove’s office gave a power point presentation to political appointees at the GSA on what to expect in the 2006 elections. That presentation was completely illegal under the Hatch Act. Has Rove or anyone in his office been held accountable? As I have said before, there is a military expression, ‘’screw up and move up.” OK, some of the people in his administration have not moved up, but they certainly have not moved out. Keeping people on the job when they have made glaring mistakes is bad for morale and sends the message that poor management and even illegal acts will be tolerated.

The day-to-day saga of Attorney General Gonzales and the firing of the U.S. attorneys is another example of this ”any thing goes administration.” The story changes daily with new papers being released. Some of Gonzales’ staffers are talking and some staffers are ”pleading the Fifth.” You can only scratch your head and wonder who is advising the president? Is it that the president is a micromanager and keeps staffers to protect people from revealing the decisions he has made? Has President Bush relied on an inner circle of advisers and refuses to budge from the fact that they are not serving him well?

Holding people accountable is one thing, but withholding information about accountability is quite another. Just this week there were hearings held in Congress about proposed changes to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). There was testimony provided that whenever there is a request for information on a controversial issue, the government purposely slows down the process. Little bureaucratic tricks such as sending notification that there must be a response in fourteen days to keep the request active and sending it via snail mail are just some of many ways to keep Americans from being able to hold their government accountable. Making any information subject to ”national security concerns,” including the design and costs of a handicap ramp outside a Vermont municipal building is another. (The ramp was from a federal grant.) It is difficult to hold people accountable without information. The Clinton people were not great about FOIA requests either, but the Bush Administration has elevated ”non disclosure” to an art form using post Sept. 11reasoning to block anything and everything.

Fortunately, there are those souls who have a conscience that gnaws at them. Just this week lawyer and Marine Lt. Col. Stuart Couch spoke out about why he will not continue to prosecute Mohamedou Ould Slahi, a suspected terrorist detained in Gitmo. Why? Couch concluded that he had been tortured. No one has been held accountable for the torture. This torture makes what was a good legal case seem coerced. According to Dowd, it is the president’s insular inner circle that keeps him from holding people accountable and making decisions in the war on terror that are going to bring genuine security versus the perception of security.

Matthew Dowd wants the president to be different and so do most Americans. They want that guy who we saw for five minutes on Wednesday night, open, connecting and flexible. We need that President Bush, not the one who is rigid, remote and relates only to a small circle of out of touch advisers.