The Washington Post has an article today entitled
"Bush Team Rethinks Its Plan for Recovery - New Approach Could Save Second Term". The piece chronicles the struggle within a factionalized White House to shape Administration rhetoric in the coming year.
It started with how to frame the discussion about Iraq over the past few months. In one corner was Karl Rove, who championed the same old attack-dog speechifying that had been used against John Kerry in 2004. In the other were younger members of the White House staff like Dan Bartlett and Nicole Wallace advocating "a more textured approach." I think by "textured approach" they meant "texturing our baseless rah-rah bravado with at least a cursory nod to the existing factual situation in Iraq."
Post: "Although Rove raised concerns about giving critics too much ground, the younger-generation aides prevailed. Bush agreed to try the (textured) approach so long as he did not come off sounding too negative."
This approach, after showing some polling gains for the President regarding Iraq, will now be, supposedly, the norm for the Bush Administration - at least for the time being. Maybe now we can expect a little truth-sugar tempering the harsh flavor of the Bush Administration's bitter brew of LIES! (That metaphor was a little melodramatic, and I apologize.) But don't get too excited. As the authors (Peter Baker and Jim VandeHei) note in their Post article:
"Some are concerned that although Bush has changed his approach, he has not changed himself. He has been reluctant to look outside his inner circle for advice, and even some closest to Bush call that a mistake because aides have given up trying to get him to do things they know he would reject."
BUT I HAVE AN IDEA THAT MIGHT WORK! Yes, my plan, if implemented and followed strictly by the Bush White House, could shift and improve not only the Administration's failed rhetoric, but also its disastrous policy.
I call it: THE COSTANZA DIRECTIVE. (all rights reserved. The Merlot Democrat is thinking about trade-marking this revolutionary approach to Republican politics, so if the Administration decides to use it, I expect significant remuneration.)
Here's how the COSTANZA DIRECTIVE works: whatever George W. Bush and his notorious inner circle think they should do, DO THE OPPOSITE. Simple, right? Whatever approach the aptly-named "Dick" Cheney "feels" in his "heart" is the right course of action, take the opposite approach. Whatever policy Karl Rove believes will help the country (or whoever it is he likes to help), implement the policy most diametrically opposed that one. When Rumsfeld thinks he has a slam-dunk, treat it like a missed three-pointer. And for God's sake, whenever the Good Lord "tells" George W. Bush to do something, pretend it was the devil (or, put another way, the aptly-named "Dick" Cheney) whispering in his ear.
Feel like it's time to stop letting sanctions work their magic and invade a country that is, at worst, a political nuisance? Let sanctions continue and send a sternly-worded note.
Ready to take another few months' vacation in Texas? Stay put at Pennsylvania Avenue.
Believe the president needs nearly unfettered power to deal with terrorists to protect Americans, and that to preserve the president's flexibility, any measure that might impose constraints should be resisted? Go ahead and embrace the language of the McCain Anti-Torture Amendment as well as treaties such as the U.N. Convention Against Torture. (The Costanza Directive may have already been employed in this case, it seems.)
Think Brownie's doing a heckuva job? Fire Brownie.
Assume "war on terror" allows you to disregard laws enacted precisely to prevent precisely what you want to do? Get a warrant.
If it worked for one George (Costanza), maybe it'll work for another (Bush).
cross-posted at my site