Former Bush Aide Blasts GOP Field

Washingtonpost.com: Dan Bartlett Says Thompson's A "Dud," Romney's Religion Will Hurt Him

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Peter Baker for washingtonpost.com's blog The Trail.

---

One of President Bush's closest advisers has a brutally candid analysis of the Republican nomination battle: Fred Thompson is the campaign's "biggest dud," Mitt Romney has "a real problem in the South" because people will not vote for a Mormon, Mike Huckabee's last name is too hick and John McCain could end up repeating 2000 by winning New Hampshire but losing the nomination.

Dan Bartlett, who stepped down as White House counselor in July after working nearly his entire adult life for Bush, gave those frank assessments of the Republican presidential candidates during a recent appearance before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that went unnoticed outside the room. Never before has Bartlett opened up in a public setting with such an unvarnished analysis of the race. And while he no longer formally speaks for the president, Bartlett spent 14 years channeling Bush and remains virtually his alter ego, so his views could be seen as a revealing look into the thinking within the president's inner circle.

Bartlett was harshest in his judgment of Thompson, the former Tennessee senator who jumped into the contest a month ago and faces his first televised debate today. Thompson, Bartlett said, was the "biggest dud" because he peaked last spring when he first started talking about running and since then has yet to articulate a compelling vision for why he is running. "The biggest liability was whether he had the fire in the belly to run for office in the first place and be president," Bartlett said. "So what does he do? He waits four months, fires a bunch of staff, has a big staff turnover, has a lot of backbiting, comes out with his big campaign launch and gives a very incoherent and not very concise stump speech for why he's running for president."

Bartlett held out little hope that Thompson could win the nomination. "Unless they really find a way to crystallize his message for why he's different than the other candidates, why people should take a second look now, I don't feel very good that Fred Thompson's going to be the candidate for my party," he said.

His judgment of Romney was only somewhat less negative. While crediting the former Massachusetts governor with the "best strategy and organization" born out of his "business acumen," Bartlett said "the flip-flopping on positions" stemmed from a miscalculation that the primary field would be more conservative than it proved to be. "They were trying to solidify his conservative credentials." Bartlett added: "He's getting a narrative in the national media as somebody that is too much trying to position himself, trying to hedge himself, almost too mechanical about the issues. Authenticity is going to be a very important principle in this campaign. And right now that’s their biggest danger."

The flip-flopping issue, Bartlett added, provides an outlet for another big reason why Republican voters will not back Romney -- his religion. "The Mormon issue is a real problem in the South, it's a real problem in other parts of the country," he said. "But people are not going to say it. People are not going to step out and say, 'I have a problem with Romney because he's Mormon.' What they're going to say is he's a flip-flopper. ... It's a fact, it's reality. I don't know if it's one that will keep him from becoming the nominee for the party but it's something they clearly understand they've got to deal with."

Bartlett was more sympathetic to McCain, calling him the "biggest wild card," but he clearly felt the Arizona senator who lost the nomination to Bush in 2000 still faces enormous hurdles. "He is now where he does his best," Bartlett said. "He's lean, he's mean, he's out there, he's fighting in New Hampshire. The problem's going to be it always comes down to money, money, money. He doesn't have it. The irony could be he could see this thing play out the exact same way it did in 2000. He could win in New Hampshire and not have any infrastructure or funding to maximize it in a national campaign."

As it happens, the Bush adviser was most enthusiastic about a contender who seems to have even less chance. He called Huckabee the "best candidate," one who seems to most mirror Bush's own vision of compassionate conservatism. "He is the most articulate, visionary candidate of anybody in the field," Bartlett said. Initially, he admitted, he was perplexed that the former Arkansas governor was running. "But the more I watch him, the more impressed I become." When it comes to advocating conservative positions on social issues, "he does it in a very positive, optimistic way."

But Huckabee probably cannot win, Bartlett added. "He's got the obvious problems -- being from Hope, Ark., and, quite frankly, having the last name 'Huckabee,'" he said. "I hate to be so light about it, but it is, it's an issue. Politics can be fickle like that. I mean, you're trying to get somebody's attention for the first time. ... 'Huckabee? You've got to be kidding me! Hope, Arkansas? Here we go again.'"

The only top-tier candidate Bartlett did not criticize was Rudy Giuliani, whom he credited with the "best message," particularly because the former New York mayor has kept his focus on attacking Democrats, not fellow Republicans, which serves as an effective distraction from his own liberal positions on guns, gays and abortion. "He's doing it particularly with Hillary," Bartlett said. "There's headlines the other day. He wants to engage in this debate. And there's a very practical aspect of it because if he's engaged with the Democrats, he's not engaged on ... his own positions, whatever those that would not be very receptive in a typical Republican primary."

For all that, Bartlett declined to make a prediction about who would win the nomination, although he seemed to lean toward Giuliani. "Republicans, I believe, are terrified about losing the presidency after losing Congress," he said. "I think this is going to be the season of the pragmatic Republican voter. That bodes well for Rudy and it gives McCain a shot because I think people feel McCain can go toe-to-toe with Hillary in the general election."

Bartlett, who was at the heart of two presidential campaigns, gave his appraisal during a Sept. 13 joint appearance with former Democratic National Committee chairman Terence McAuliffe, campaign chairman for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the Democratic presidential frontrunner. Bartlett was taking on the role in a regular tandem act once played by former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie, who succeeded him as White House counselor. It was Bartlett's first public speech since leaving the White House and video excerpts, of it are posted on the Web site of Leading Authorities, the speakers bureau that arranges his appearances ($10,000 to $20,000 for speeches in town, $20,000 to $30,000 for out of town events).

Bartlett began his presentation by noting that after so many years on someone else's payroll, he finally feels "a little liberated." Certainly seems so.

[dgwooster]

I''ll bet they''re glad no one asked a question about EVOLUTION again.

[pepperwood2]

CACKLING CLINTON starting to unite already with OLD CRONIES. But what has this got to do with bringing this Country Together. Folks - America deserves better than this.

Berger was Clinton''''s national security adviser from 1997 until 2001. In 2003, while preparing for the 9/11 commission hearings, he took copies of secret documents from the National Archives and later destroyed them. He was caught a few days after absconding with papers from the archive''''s College Park, Md., facility, and lied to investigators.

The New York Democrat''''s campaign downplayed the fact, saying Monday that Berger is an informal, unpaid adviser to the campaign, something ascribed to many people associated with the campaign. Berger has been a longtime friend of both Clintons.

[ioweign]

And you libs can''''t take responsibility for anything correct. Bush was in office 8 months how long was the 9/11 attack being plotted. Do you think this was conceived overnight. This was in play even during the 1993 attack. How many times did Clinton have the opportunity to take Bin laden into custody.

Posted by nexgen99 at 10:27 AM : Oct 10, 2007


Clinton has said he tried to take bin Laden out but the missiles missed bin Laden.

Now for Bush:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001 George W. Bush

"I don''t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don''t care. It''s not that important. It''s not our priority." Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002 George W Bush

"Can we win? I don''t think you can win it." after being asked whether the war on terror was winnable, "Today" show interview, Aug. 30, 2004 George W Bush

[socrates392]

"People are not going to step out and say, ''I have a problem with Romney because he''s Mormon."


I''ll say it. I won''t vote for Romney because he''s mormon.

[nexgen99]

"Well just look at Vietnam, 2 -3 million slaughtered when we abruptly exited. Who caused this?, the same democratic s.c.u.m.b.a.g.s who are today undermining our troops today."
Posted by nexgen99 at 09:10 AM : Oct 10, 2007

The Democrats caused us to exit Viet Nam? Abruptly? History seems to support my memory that Nixon was in the White House--and it was his second term! The American people wanted out in 1968. Nixon assured them that was his goal, while escalating the war. Stop parroting Neocon revisionist history.

Posted by flreason

--------------------------------------

Well then your history needs to be improved because the Democrats controlled congress and the senate for almost forty years.

[superdem]

I watched the Republican "debate" last night - what a dismal show of conformity. When you create a version of reality based on ideology, and maintain it despite every intrusion reality can make, there''s a word for that - DELUSIONAL. These guys are DELUSIONAL, every one of them. Ron Paul at least confronts the prevailing delusion - with one uniquely his own. He''s right on the war, but wrong about everything else. The rest are wrong on everything. The country is scratching it''s collective head at these guys, who seem hellbent on war and American supremacy while simultaneously letting American decay and be bought by foreign interests. Republicans never met a military program they didn''t like, or a domestice one they did. They are wasting America''s lifeblood in the sands of Iraq and Afghanistan, while our country falls apart back home. They have nothing to offer - even their constant chant of NO TAXES promises want. deprivation and rationing.

[tnt1954]

the jingoistic, manifest destiny wars of conquest
will never be over. we have a whole universe
out there to conquer. fooooorrrrrwwwwaaaarrrdddd ho!

[nowayjosay]

Good insight for conservatives without a conscience.

[cfin5]

I''m glad he used the word "pragmatic" as I don''t mind being historically correct in my voting decision in accordance with the voting history of the presidential candidates. I have no more patience for promises without their congressional voting record to prove it. It''s not about democrat or republican anymore. The Bush''s and Clinton''s has taught us well that it is about global socialism or national sovereignty.....I choose national sovereignty with Ron Paul, the best guardian of our Constitution for both American hearted democrats and republicans in 2008! GO USA!!!

[flreason]

"Well just look at Vietnam, 2 -3 million slaughtered when we abruptly exited. Who caused this?, the same democratic s.c.u.m.b.a.g.s who are today undermining our troops today."
Posted by nexgen99 at 09:10 AM : Oct 10, 2007

The Democrats caused us to exit Viet Nam? Abruptly? History seems to support my memory that Nixon was in the White House--and it was his second term! The American people wanted out in 1968. Nixon assured them that was his goal, while escalating the war. Stop parroting Neocon revisionist history.

How many more years of napalmed countryside and children dying do you think it would have taken to secure a "victory" or make a "gradual" withdrawal? The French had been fighting the Viet Cong with no success for decades before America stepped in. Is it victory if the only way you can "win" is by annihilating millions of people in a country to which you have no claim?

Republicans like you seem to think that the only lives that count are those of Americans. More than 1.2 million Iraqis have died so far. Our presence is used by extremists as an excuse for violence. And none of the top-tier Democrsatic candidates are suggesting that we leave precipitously.

Bush and the Neocons destroyed America''s honor and credibility by launching a unilateral war against Iraq when there was no imminent U.S. threat. Democrats are forced to clean up the mess of a corrupt, power-hungry Republican Administration and a spineless, rubber-stamp Republican-led Congress.

[jn122736]

The war is being controlled by the politicians and what have we learned when we allow politicians to determine the outcome of a war. Well just look at Vietnam, 2 -3 million slaughtered when we abruptly exited. Who caused this?, the same democratic s.c.u.m.b.a.g.s who are today undermining our troops today. You need to wake up and smell the roses.
Posted by nexgen99 at 09:10 AM : Oct 10, 2007
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

nexgen99,

The public in general (including registered voters) do tend to have short memories, however when something happens that is either frightening, traumatic, or otherwise mind-impressive they tend to remember it much longer.

We will continue to pay, both in blood and treasure, for years $1/2 trillion yearly interest on the debt, plus the costs for the continued presence in Iraq, plus almost 8000 dead troops so far.

Most voters will not forget that from the start, and through the first SIX years, this Iraq fiasco was sanctioned by a rubber-stamp republican controlled congress.

The hardest message to get through to most people is the staggering increase in the national debt due to the republican policy of BORROW and SPEND. That, in itself, is bad enough but this administration, with the full support/sanction of the republican controlled congress actually cut taxes IN TIME OF WAR for the first time in history.
It is incredible that they borrow $1 trillion dollars a year and at the same time, claim the economy is doing great.

[jack3213]

This series of blogs proves the ultimate point that whatever is said in media, the majority willfully follows.`Like a mindless herd, people come together with no real thought of their own and spew what the most arrogant person says. It is trully amazing how differant perceptions are. Of course, my two cents is that the Republicans are scaring the lefties so much they are becoming increasingly angrier and angrier. Too bad, you all better slow down, or your heart will give out when you lose-AGAIN.

[rafterman1]

===And you libs can''''t take responsibility for anything correct. Bush was in office 8 months how long was the 9/11 attack being plotted. Do you think this was conceived overnight. This was in play even during the 1993 attack. How many times did Clinton have the opportunity to take Bin laden into custody.===

Bubba did plenty of things wrong, e.g., Somalia, Monica and we admit that. But when have you hard core righties ever criticized Bush for anything? If you took out all the lefty posts here over the months and years and just left the righty posts, you''d swear Bush was a perfect president. Come mon, let''s hear it, tell us what you think Bush has done wrong, not just how it''s all really Clinton''s fault.

[bogusbones]

Maybe he''s saying there aren''t any Repubs worthy of the Presidency. If this guy spent his entire adult professional life with GW then no wonder he''s disillusioned. Probably came from a wealthy home and has never been on the other side of the tracks. Sometimes these people make me wonder if they were born without a brain.

[marcodele]

Harry Truman said "The buck stops here."

9/11 happened on Bush''s watch, under his administration.

But yet for Junior, "The buck never stops here."

[nexgen99]

===No rafterman1 I think Clinton''''''''s failures for eight years led to the deaths of over 3,000 Americans on 9/11===

And once again a neocon refusers to take responsibility for anything. It''''s always some else''''s fault, it''''s always Clinton''''s fault. Pathetic.

Posted by rafterman1

------------------------

And you libs can''t take responsibility for anything correct. Bush was in office 8 months how long was the 9/11 attack being plotted. Do you think this was conceived overnight. This was in play even during the 1993 attack. How many times did Clinton have the opportunity to take Bin laden into custody.

[marcodele]

Amazing how George W. Bush and so-called National Security Chief Condoleeze Rice ignored the bi-partisan report on terrorism that CLINTON commissioned, yet 9/11 is Clinton''s fault. The neocons seems to have only one brain cell named "Clinton."

[nexgen99]

===It was a typo or maybe I should use the Democratic terminology. I had a moment of sloppiness (Sandy Berger discussing his stealing of classified documents)===

Sandy Burger stealing documents or George Bush lying about a war that has killed 3500+ American soldiers. Righties sure have a funny view about what''''s right and wrong. But then again, righties think Clinton''''s sexcapades are far worse than getting soldiers killed, so I''''m not surprised.

Posted by rafterman1

=======================
No rafterman1 I think Clinton''s failures for eight years led to the deaths of over 3,000 Americans on 9/11....

[jon_mccain]

He''''s right, but I find it sickening that CBS reports NOTHING on Clinton using Sandy Burgler as an ''''advisor.''''

But this man''''s personal opinions get TOP BILLING. Biased as always, eh CBS? And you wonder why your ratings are plummeting.

Posted by SignOf4

ROFL!! Perhaps this "Sandy Burglar" story really only matters to the 20 something percent that are vigilantly watching to make sure that the buck never stops with Bush. The average voter doesn''t care..

[signof4]

He''s right, but I find it sickening that CBS reports NOTHING on Clinton using Sandy Burgler as an ''advisor.''

But this man''s personal opinions get TOP BILLING. Biased as always, eh CBS? And you wonder why your ratings are plummeting.