[Mb-civic] Card's Departure Seen as a Sign President Hears Words of Critics - Washington Post

[William Swiggard]

Card's Departure Seen as a Sign President Hears Words of Critics

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 29, 2006; A01

A few weeks ago, President Bush's spokesman dismissed talk of an 
impending staff change as "inside Washington babble."

White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr.'s resignation yesterday 
suggests that Bush was listening.

Through one full term and the first year of the second, a signature of 
this administration was the indifference -- even contempt -- it showed 
for the capital's political and media culture, and for the endless flow 
of commentary and unsolicited advice that its inhabitants deliver daily 
to all presidents.

Bush, his advisers say, has by no means changed his view of what he 
derisively calls the "chattering class." But the Card move is only the 
latest sign that -- with his presidency under the stress of low public 
approval ratings, an unpopular war and a stalled legislative agenda -- 
Bush is more often deferring to the expectations of Washington 
conventional wisdom.

On Iraq, he has not shifted policy but has modified his message in 
response to legislators and GOP operatives who said he needed to more 
directly address the arguments of opponents instead of simply 
disparaging them as defeatists. On his domestic agenda -- after last 
year proved that doubters of both parties on Capitol Hill were right 
when they said his planned overhaul of Social Security was far too 
ambitious -- Bush has returned this year with a series of small 
proposals such as incentives for alternative energy sources.

At the same time, the president who set out five years ago to circumvent 
what he considered the "filter" of Washington's mainstream media, has 
started having off-the-record, get-to-know-you-better chats with White 
House reporters.

"When you run into brick walls, you need to figure out ways around it," 
said a high-ranking administration official, who acknowledged that a 
White House that once prided itself on tuning out the views of op-ed 
pages and cable talk shows is now more likely to tune in. "Part of what 
you are seeing is some adjustment to the political realities."

These accommodations are of the sort that many presidents have made 
before, and Bush's steps should not be overstated. He has not summoned a 
respected Capitol Hill figure to join his staff, as Ronald Reagan did 
when he tapped Howard Baker as his chief of staff after the Iran-contra 
scandal in 1987. He did not invite a well-known figure from the other 
party into his fold, as Bill Clinton did when he recruited commentator 
David Gergen to help right a stumbling presidency in 1993.

What's more, Bush's team well knows that making nods to 
inside-Washington expectations can affect its political fortunes only at 
the margins. As Bush himself said at a news conference last week, his 
"political capital" is nearly all invested in Iraq, and that war is 
almost certainly what will determine his political success or failure in 
the balance of his presidency.

Still, longtime Bush observers are struck by the stylistic changes on 
display.

"The first term was about discipline, driven by a big event -- Sept. 11 
-- that shaped the era, and maybe it saved them for a while," said Ed 
Rogers, a Republican with close ties to the White House. "It allowed 
them to do things that were inconsistent with the currents and ways of 
Washington. Now absent a big event that has upset the political order 
and laws of political physics, they are back playing by the rules that 
govern this universe."

Ari Fleischer, Bush's spokesman in the first term, said the president is 
simply conforming to a new political reality. "Tough times force you to 
adjust," he said. "When times are tough and poll numbers are down . . . 
the president is more open to change for whatever good comes with that 
change."

Fleischer said there is no doubt that the Card resignation was at least 
partly the result of Republican calls for a staff shake-up. "There was a 
drumbeat out there that the president's staff could not miss and Bush 
could not miss," he said. Publicly, White House officials said it was 
Card who decided to resign, but a top aide said Bush gradually came to 
the conclusion that it was the right thing to do.

The president-vs.-Washington battle is not a new phenomenon. Washington 
has long had its own unique culture governed by a set of unspoken but 
generally understood political and social mores. By custom, presidents 
are expected to reach out to the social and political elite. The people 
in that elite almost always have the same advice: Listen to the top 
pundits, do more to reach across the partisan aisle, embrace foreign 
travel, shake up the staff when polls go in the tank. Most recent 
presidents, to some extent, came to town intent on playing by their own 
set of rules, and most end up striking some sort of truce.

"There are certain lessons you learn," said Leon E. Panetta, who became 
Clinton's second chief of staff in 1994 after an unseasoned White House 
staff made many errors in the first year. Presidents such as Bush and 
Clinton, who came from outside Washington, "kinda look down on 
Washington," Panetta added, but ultimately realize that "if you do not 
learn how to work in the Washington setting, it will basically eat you up."

Bush brings some personal history to the subject. After watching the 
travails of his father's presidency, he came to town with an attitude 
that bad decisions are often made when presidents pay too much attention 
to party insiders who wring their hands or don't dare to take chances, 
longtime aides said. He considered many in Washington too quick to turn 
on friends and their core principles during troubled times, and too 
scared to "shape history."

Bush's strategy often worked, according to John D. Podesta, a former 
Clinton chief of staff. But even some Republicans said it was less the 
result of Bush's strategy than the Sept. 11 attacks, which spurred twin 
emotions of fear and patriotism among voters and in Congress that 
allowed Bush to set the agenda and strike a defiant stance. One person 
close to Bush said this created a false sense of power and success at 
the highest reaches of the White House.

Bush's fatal mistake, Podesta said, was going too far in the direction 
of avoiding, if not alienating, important people in Washington. "You 
have to tip your hat enough to the chattering class so they don't spend 
every day thinking about how to flay you," Podesta said.

The Card resignation by itself does not signal a radical shift for this 
White House. But aides said more changes will come and that Bush is 
strongly considering adding one or two well-known Republicans to help 
soothe relations with Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR2006032801806.html?referrer=email
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060329/bdcf3f6a/attachment.htm