With that in mind, I find today's edition to be particularly important. Addressing the heresy and apostasy of Michael Dowd, the Bush consultant who went public this past weekend with his criticisms of George W. Bush and the Bush counter-offensive, Somerby draws attention to things that much of the "he-said-she-said" approach of the media have left out. Of course, if anyone is reading this blog, they are aware that the White House went whole hog after Dowd, questioning not the substance of Dowd's criticisms, nor the man's integrity, but rather his psychological fitness and therefore the relevant weight that should be given to his views. Most egregious in this regard was White House counsel Dan Bartlett who was specific - a series of personal misfortunes, including a divorce and the ensuing deployment of Dowd's son to Iraq have left his judgment questionable.
Of course, no one is surprised by the White House's approach; it is business as usual to attack those who disagree with them, especially those who were former friends. In Bartlett's case, when pushed, he denied making a personal attack (which he was in fact doing) and then repeated his original statements. Many liberals rushed to defend Dowd; I remember hearing Air America radio host Bill Press gleefully touting Dowd as a once-true believer who had turned on Bush and been trashed publicly for it. The subtext of this is, "Therefore we must believe him." Of course, many on the right take the opposite tack, pointing out Dowd's history as a Democratic operative in Texas, and his supposed publicly acknowledged willingness to join one of the Democratic campaigns as a consultant (I have not heard or read of this, but perhaps it is true; I neither know nor care, and it is irrelevant to the issue here).
Somerby takes all this in and then asks some questions, not about Dowd's motives or integrity, but about the publicly available information concerning who Dowd is, what he has done (especially as regards the corrosive aspects of certain aspects of the Bush approach to governance), and wonders how much weight we should be giving this particular story. The issue is not one of the motives behind Dowd's sudden decision to jump ship. Our motives for even the most important decisions of our lives are usually opaque to us. The issue is taking in as much of the information available to us as we can, and then considering Dowd's actions in light of that information. In this case, Somerby highlights a Frontline documentary that showed how Dowd had decided, in the wake of the Florida nonsense, that there was little middle ground left in the country, and it would be better for Bush to govern for and to the Republican base rather than as a uniting figure. The evidence indicates, then, that all the most egregious follies of Bush's style of governance lie at the feet of this former Democratic campaign consultant, who recommended that Bush govern as a radical conservative in order to keep his base intact. With Cheney's Darth Vader-like breathing in his ear concerning the primacy of executive power, and the nonsense of John Yoo's "unitary executive" theory, Dowd's advice must have seemed sound.
Taking all that in to account, what are we to make of Dowd's complaint that Bush has not governed as a bipartisan uniter when he was the architect of an approach that demanded Bush not so govern? This is not a question of psychological motives, nor is it to question his personal integrity. It is to raise the only critical question necessary to weighing Dowd's apostasy (and the sudden rush to defend him from White House attack cats) and considering its sincerity in light of what is publicly available. To my mind, Dowd does not come off well at all, and while the attacks by Bartlett and others have been horrific (God protect those who rush off the Bush White House spilling the beans; you all will be trashed mercilessly in public), and the liberal rush to defend him has been somewhat silly, the critical questions force us to wonder what, exactly, is the relationship between Dowd's remarks and his actual activities as an adviser to the Bush Presidency. It also, with Digby's help, forces us to demand more of Dowd that just jumping ship as it begins to sink beneath the waves. He needs to come clean on the role he played in creating this train-wreck of an Administration in the first place.
Finally, Somerby channels President Bush to point out the obvious wool-pulling Dowd may have accomplished by actually raising his profile as a consultant even while not making amends for the destructive effects upon our national polity:
BUSH UNCHAINED/PRESS STATEMENT: For six years, Matt Dowd fed you bullsh*t on my behalf. Now, he’s feeding you bullsh*t on his own behalf. I wish Matthew well in his corporate career, where he’ll trick you credulous rubes into buying a ton of bad products.
Really, isn't that the end of a critical reflection on Matthew Dowd's somewhat late, somewhat truncated mea culpa?
