A Question of Competence

There they go again: another liberal magazine attacking George Bush.

We have the caricature of W. in a baseball uniform, with the old Casey Stengel line about the '62 Mets: "Can't Anyone Here Play This Game?"

We have pieces on "How the White House Messed Things Up" on "Scootergate," and one on the Gonzales uproar, "Fiasco at Justice."

And then, the coup de grace, "the incompetence charge" against the Bush administration: "He has made a few key bad decisions about policy and personnel, compounded them by not reacting quickly enough when things go wrong, and failed to create a sense of accountability in his government. . . . The upshot is that even Republican primary voters will be looking in 2008 for someone who doesn't run the government like George W. Bush. . . . Once inside the charmed Bush circle, people tend to stay there and rise to the level of their incompetence."

Wait a second--d'oh!--this isn't the Nation or American Prospect. It's National Review! And the editor, Rich Lowry, is the author of the piece questioning the president's competence. So much for liberal media bias.

That, in a nutshell, explains why Gonzo is in deep trouble. It's not just that conservatives consider him too moderate and are not lining up to defend him (nor are Republican lawmakers rushing to the AG's side). It's the feeling that DOJ is the new FEMA, that Alberto Gonzales is the latest example of a "loyal Bushie" (to use the phrase that appeared in one e-mail to describe which U.S. attorneys should be retained) who is in over his head.

It's also interesting that Harriet Miers, who Bush thought was Supreme Court material until a conservative revolt torpedoed her chances, was deeply involved in the Purgegate planning.

I wonder if these "Republicans close to the White House" who keep getting quoted as saying Gonzales is toast and the search is on for his successor are freelancing or putting out the administration's message. After days of tepid Tony Snow endorsements, the president called his attorney general yesterday, which suggests to me he's not ready to cut his old Texas pal loose.

Some anchors and commentators described Bush at his brief news conference yesterday as "angry," but I thought he was trying to sound reasonable. Of course, Karl Rove and Harriet Miers will be happy to chat with Democratic investigators, but no troublesome details like transcripts (so the rest of us can find out what was said) or being under oath (to avoid any Scooter Libby problems). And no "partisan fishing expeditions" (unlike the high-minded approach that congressional Republicans took with Bill Clinton, when Dan Burton fired shots at a pumpkin to test his Vince Foster-was-murdered theory.) And please, no Stalinesque "show trials."

In invoking executive privilege, Bush is taking a stand embraced by every past president from Nixon to Clinton, although exceptions have been made on a number of occasions for White House aides to testify.

The Democrats--who are trying to milk this for all it's worth, which doesn't mean it's not a bona fide scandal--will huff and puff and probably issue subpoenas, and in the end a compromise will be worked out.

Reporters, meanwhile, get to trot out one of their favorite phrases: