Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

When Scott McClellan took over in the same post America was treated to more of the same.  McClellan's White House spin control drone appeared so controlled and other-directed that one had the feeling he wished he were anywhere else and perhaps even speaking for himself instead of staying on the same controlled message, delivering lines he had been fed.

Just as Fleischer's most memorable moment came when reporters laughed him out of the room, McClellan had one prominent occasion when those paying attention could see how far downward any semblance of American democracy had tumbled.  

When Helen Thomas, the dean of the White House press corps, dared to question the long arm of the Cheney-Bush thought police as exemplified by the Patriot Act, McClellan responded in the manner of the thoroughly programmed company man.

McClellan turned an important question dealing with what had happened to America's Bill of Rights in the land of the Bushies into a neo-McCarthyite response.  

McClellan tartly responded that it was too bad that Thomas, along with the other reporters pressing him for an answer, were not serious about fighting terrorism in the way that the president was deeply concerned.

The response was typical of dictatorial regimes.  It was consistent with the message and tone of George Orwell's prophetic masterpiece, 1984, which skillfully revealed in the form of a novel the link between dictatorship and mind control.  

Big Brother was needed to protect the masses from invasion and ultimate loss of liberty.  How does one fight this enemy?  In the process it is necessary to surrender one's freedoms to prevent potential loss of liberty, a Catch-22 that clearly reveals the springboard embodying current Cheney-Bush policy.  

Last week Bush attempted to look presidential as he stood beside administration mouthpiece McClellan and praised him for handling himself with "integrity" while simultaneously pointing out that he had a challenging new role for him to pursue.  

Meanwhile Bushspeak was the order of the day as media commentators delivered the message with a straight face that what Bush needed was someone who could better connect with the media and more clearly articulate the administration's message.

That same line had been trotted out earlier when it was announced that veteran Bush loyalist, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, was relinquishing his post.  The point emphasized in the cases of Card and McClellan's departures was that Bush recognized the reality of his sagging poll numbers and was making an effort to change the message and adopt new policies.  

The example of Card as any kind of policy proponent was as absurd as the idea of according any kind of autonomy to McClellan's press pronouncements.  Card was a faithful Republican operative known for being a planner rather than a policy maker, making both moves purely cosmetic, Bushspeak propaganda spin from beginning to end.

The piece de resistance of the propaganda maneuver came, however, when it was announced that Karl Rove was surrendering his policy portfolio within White House circles and would instead be devoting himself exclusively to the 2006 campaign.  It was Karl Rove who "discovered" Bush and turned him into a Texas cowboy and "man of the people" to thrill the hearts of Nascar dads throughout America.

Without Karl Rove there is no Bush, an axiom as certain as that there would have been no Charlie McCarthy without Edgar Bergen.  Bush watchers who refuse to be fooled know that there is no separation between policy and politics in the land of Bushspeak.  The two are inextricable, a principle Rove learned as a young man in studying his idol, Richard Milhous Nixon.  

The current musical chairs phase is, as characteristic of Cheney-Bush Rove-directed policy, all about image and spin control.  If there is indeed perceptible change and Rove has been in any way demoted or muted, we will see a 2006 campaign season based on articulating messages and devoid of artifice.

If a fundamental change has occurred the 2006 campaign will not focus on the old familiar accusatory McCarthy-Nixon ploys of "to oppose Bush is to stand with terrorists" and the steady dissemination of the "you are running down America" line.  Can one fathom the Republicans running an issues-oriented campaign devoid of the harsh rhetoric associated with Karl Rove?  

Does anyone who has studied the backgrounds of the Cheney-Rove-Bush axis really believe that comprehensive change is afoot and a new day has dawned?  If so then one question must be asked:  Did Bush assume responsibility for any past mistakes?

Using subordinates as scapegoats is no more than a continuation of the Cheney-Bush no fault administration.  This is a duo incapable of mistake.  If there are unfortunate results occurring anywhere for any reason, look elsewhere and absolve Cheney and Bush from even a pretext of wrongdoing.  

This is a reversal of the Harry Truman "the buck stops here" maxim.  With Cheney and Bush the maxim is "the buck stops anywhere but here".