With dwindling political capital, Bush finds unwavering loyalty tested with Wolfowitz and Gonzales

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT: White House Memo
Two Cases Are Test for Bush’s Unwavering Loyalty
By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: April 21, 2007


(Tim Sloan/Agence France-Presse—Getty Images)
Paul D. Wolfowitz, the World Bank president, is facing calls to resign.


(Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is taking bipartisan criticism.

WASHINGTON, April 20 — Time and time again, President Bush has stood by his most embattled but loyal lieutenants despite loud calls for their heads, at times defying the established physics of Washington (rapidly diminishing support in one’s own party times the number of instances in which one has failed to convincingly explain away accusations of incompetence or malfeasance equals the certainty of rapid resignation).

But Mr. Bush’s ability to turn aside that kind of pressure is now facing a serious test as he confronts what to do about Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Paul D. Wolfowitz, the president of the World Bank.

How Mr. Bush moves to resolve the situations is being watched closely in Democratic and Republican circles for what it says about his standing in the capital’s new power dynamic, as a late-term president with low approval ratings and a hostile and increasingly assertive Congress.

They are two very different cases in two very different worlds: Mr. Wolfowitz faces questions about favoritism toward his girlfriend; Mr. Gonzales is dealing with bipartisan criticism about his competence and questions about whether the Justice Department dismissed several federal prosecutors for political reasons.

In each case Mr. Bush is standing by a loyalist with an evaporating base of support and a serious challenge to his credibility even among Republicans. And, two Republicans close to the administration said, in the case of Mr. Gonzales, even some of Mr. Bush’s close aides think that his resignation would best serve the administration but do not find a like-minded view from the president, who is personally close to the attorney general.

Yet, in a mark of his dwindling political capital, Mr. Bush has so far left Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Wolfowitz mostly to fend for themselves, pledging his continued confidence in them, but in each case saying it would fall to them to build back support among their core constituencies. And neither, to say the least, has made any visible progress....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/washington/21memo.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1177215462-3ZXNtr7wZQ+zbQRYgBExTA

[aquart]

1. And yet they are still not gone!

[ninkasi]

2. While part of it might be loyalty to cronies

I really believe that a lot of it is simply Bush's stubborn refusal to do something because other people think he should. He is absolutely obstinate, and unwilling to be seen as giving in to pressure, or other people's opinions. It's a power thing with him. He's going to do what he wants to do, and to hell with how destructive, or dangerous, that thing is, he's not going to give in to pressure.

[DeepModem Mom]

3. I agree completely. nt

[LiberalFighter]

6. This is the type of person that should had been taken out to the woodshed

by his parents when he was a child.

[radfringe]

4. heh

[saltpoint]

5. As this spring becomes summer and summer fall, I'm thinking we'll

hear more and more Republicans assert their independence from the Bush administration's policies.

The ones up for re-election like Sens. Sununu and Smith have already begun to sever ties. Both are supposed to be in potentially close races. I could do without either one of them, in fact, and I hope voters in New Hampshire and Oregon show them the door.

There'll also be the usual departures from the Cabinet this year. Bush will become even more isolated than he is now.

As for Wolfowitz and Gonzales, these were yet two more people who could have served their country and instead, served either themselves (Wolfowitz) or Dubya (Gonzales).