Will the Different Voices Make a Difference? (BushCo Turnover))

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/17/AR2007061701083.html?referrer=email&referrer=email&referrer=email

Will the Different Voices Make a Difference?

By Michael A. Fletcher
Monday, June 18, 2007; A15



Friend and foe alike have long grumbled that President Bush should shed some of the Texas insiders on his staff and assemble a more diverse team willing to confront him with competing ideas and bad news. Now it seems the president is doing just that, but at a stage when his low popularity ratings and dwindling time left in office threaten to diminish his presidential clout as never before.

"Having an A Team is better late than never," lobbyist and White House pal Ed Rogers told our colleague Michael Abramowitz.

White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten has worked his considerable charm and broad network of contacts to bring in a string of appointees that many see as second to none. Last week, Bush named former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie to be White House counselor to replace the departing Dan Bartlett. Earlier, Bolten somehow talked Daniel M. Price, who had built a thriving legal practice, into joining the National Security Council in an important but low-profile role in charge of international economic affairs. This came after Bolten helped bring heavyweights Henry M. Paulson Jr. (Treasury), Fred F. Fielding (counsel's office), Robert M. Gates (Defense) and Tony Snow (press office), among others, into the White House fold.

"I usually begin my calls by saying, 'This is your country calling,' " Bolten cracked. And people respond, he said, out of both a sense of patriotism and personal loyalty to the president. Bolten rejects the critique that the president ever had an amen chorus around him, but he added: "Six years into a presidency it is important to have fresh voices and perspectives."

"Each major appointment he has made has generally been recognized as equal or superior to the one he replaced," said George Washington University professor Stephen Hess. But when asked whether he thought the new blood would cause the beleaguered administration to change course, Hess was not so upbeat. "Not really," he said.

.................................................

Recess Games

Normally, it would be a no-brainer for Senate Democrats to please their base and shoot down President Bush's nomination of Hans A. von Spakovsky for a seat on the Federal Election Commission.

Civil rights groups and others say the hyper-political von Spakovsky, while at the Justice Department, attempted to quash efforts to expand minority access to voting and that he favored Tom DeLay's gerrymandering efforts. So, with the Dems in charge of the Senate, he's toast, right?

Not so fast, advises our colleague Al Kamen. It's more complicated than that. Turns out that killing von Spakovsky's nomination could give Bush a golden opportunity to use his recess powers to appoint a majority of the commission in 2008 -- or leave the commission without a quorum.

Here's how that works. Right now, von Spakovsky and two Democrats -- FEC Chairman Robert D. Lenhard and Majority Leader Sen. Harry M. Reid's pick, Steven T. Walther-- are recess appointees on the six-member commission, which must be split evenly between R's and D's.

Two other members -- a Democrat and a Republican -- can stay on until their replacements are confirmed, even though their terms have long expired. The last seat, which goes to a Republican, recently opened and Bush is expected to nominate someone to fill it.

Senate Democrats would be happy to confirm Lenhard and Walther, but not von Spakovsky. But Senate Republicans oppose such cherry-picking and want the votes taken -- as they traditionally have been -- as a package, one for one: your crony, my crony.

Otherwise, GOPers grumble, they may block all nominations and leave the commission, once the three current recess nominees' appointments expire at the end of this year, without a quorum or let Bush, if he wants, make three or four new recess appointments to the commission.

Those new recess appointments would be good until the end of next year -- that is, until after the elections. Not a particularly appealing prospect for the Democrats.