Safire follies: Reckless Bill proves the other side's point

Straight out of the gate in today's column, outgoing NYT op-ed sage Bill Safire unintentionally proves the very point he is attempting to undermine.

Because critics two weeks ago were saying that Bush is surrounding himself with yes-men but now take him to task for not crushing dissent from the GOP House on intelligence reform, goes Safire's reasoning, then they're flip-floppers. They want dissent but they don't want it.

What unadulterated nonsense, Bill. First of all, in the yes-men first case, we're talking about the extermination of dissent within the executive branch; the second case, dealing with congressional dissent, goes to the separation of powers -- it is entirely appropriate for the people's elected representatives to disagree with the president.

Secondly, the dissent in each case comes from substantively different worldviews. In the executive branch, the soon-to-be-silenced internal dissenters are less inclined to support preemptive war, the raping of the environment or the installation of fundamentalist jurists on the federal bench. Among the House majority, the opposition to the president is less ideological and more territorial and institutional, and to the extent it is ideological, it's from a decidedly right-wing outlook.

What Safire doesn't realize is that he's supporting the case for more internal dissent in the executive branch. Team Bush was essentially blindsided by Sensenbrenner and Hunter in the House. Knowing that it always wins a fight within the administration -- because there are no real fights, especially with the "mandate" -- the White House figured Congress would roll over, too. It is the very insulation from disagreement within the White House that will make cooperation with Congress and the states very, very difficult to achieve.

Thanks, Safire, for shining the light; how sad, however, that you're still so blind.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/24/opinion/24safire.html?oref=login>