If you watched the press roundtables this weekend on Meet the Press or Chris Matthews, there's lots of speculation about where "Scootergate" is going. Is Bush going to be tainted? What will happen to Cheney? Will Bush make some changes? Will Bush fight back against the WMD intelligence criticism? (When that op-ed was flashed on MTP yesterday, I basically, said, oh, please, pretty please, could the President try to defend WMD intelligence?)
There's something important here, though, and I think it should be the key meme for this whole business. Who's in charge?
What the pundits are tiptoeing around, but not explicitly saying, is, "Who's in charge"? They're asking "Who's in charge?" questions. Like:
- Why doesn't Bush get rid of Rove?
- Why doesn't Rumsfeld resign over Abu Gharib?
- Why doesn't Cheney get marginalized by Bush?
- Why doesn't Bush distance himself from Cheney?
The easy answer to these questions? "Bush isn't running the show. What Rove says, goes. When it comes to governing, it's what Cheney says." It also explains Bush's "determination" to stick with the Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld losers, through a possible subpoena and testimony on Capitol Hill in the Plamegate investigation. He can't operate without these people. These people are running the show, not Bush.
Bush is in a truly awful position. The Iraq war is not only his responsibility, but if he cans or marginalizes Cheney and Rumsfeld, he can't do so without also saying "I made a mistake in liberating Iraq". It's as much Cheney's/Rumsfeld's war as it is Bush's.
Furthermore, Bush doesn't "own" any of the credit for his electoral wins or domestic agenda either. That's Rove's credit and Rove's doing. If Bush keeps Rove around, all the legislation Bush will have gotten "done" will be Rove's, not Bush's.
See the meme? Bush isn't in control. If I'm a democratic strategist, I'm having Ted Kennedy going on MTP and saying, "Why isn't Bush in control of his own White House?" Everyone's implying it - it's time for people to start saying it.