Former Bush Aide Now Disappointed in the President

The NY Times carries a story about Matthew Dowd, former Bush aide who is now voicing his disappointment in the president:

In 1999, Matthew Dowd became a symbol of George W. Bush’s early success at positioning himself as a Republican with Democratic appeal.

A top strategist for the Texas Democrats who was disappointed by the Bill Clinton years, Mr. Dowd was impressed by the pledge of Mr. Bush, then governor of Texas, to bring a spirit of cooperation to Washington. He switched parties, joined Mr. Bush’s political brain trust and dedicated the next six years to getting him to the Oval Office and keeping him there. In 2004, he was appointed the president’s chief campaign strategist.

Looking back, Mr. Dowd now says his faith in Mr. Bush was misplaced.

In a wide-ranging interview here, Mr. Dowd called for a withdrawal from Iraq and expressed his disappointment in Mr. Bush’s leadership.

He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Mr. Bush still approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides.

“I really like him, which is probably why I’m so disappointed in things,” he said. He added, “I think he’s become more, in my view, secluded and bubbled in.”

Dowd is not alone. Sadly, the Bush administration, which started out so strong, has left many of us with disappointments. I expressed similar sentiments in a post a few weeks ago. This is often a problem with two-term presidencies; somewhere along the way they lose focus and you begin to sense that they're just playing out the clock.

I'm guessing that we'll begin to see more stories like this.

Unfortunately, Dowd's message devolves into liberal tripe when he hit this point:

He said that during his work on the 2006 re-election campaign of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, which had a bipartisan appeal, he began to rethink his approach to elections.

“I think we should design campaigns that appeal not to 51 percent of the people,” he said, “but bring the country together as a whole.”

He said that he still believed campaigns must do what it takes to win, but that he was never comfortable with the most hard-charging tactics. He is now calling for “gentleness” in politics. He said that while he tried to keep his own conduct respectful during political combat, he wanted to “do my part in fixing fissures that I may have been part of.”

Rather than criticize the president, perhaps he should start with the Dems who to this day refuse to recognize Bush's presidency as legitimate. Where's the "gentleness" in how the Dems have treated the president?

I also doubt the wisdom of abandoning principles in order to "bring the country together". In reality, we are a 50/50 country now the compromises you'd have to make to "bring the country together" are not worth it. There are specific issues that both sides have strong beliefs in, and abandoning those in the name of consensus would be foolish.

This article could well be a gambit by Dowd to seek employment with one of the Dem candidates, or perhaps a GOP candidate he can mold into the type of wishy-washy politician he seems to think we need (he won't have a hard time finding a Republican to do that - just go to Arizona). This piece will have a moment of glory, and Dowd will get invited on all the talking head shows, but after that he'll have to return to his own private agonies.