As reported by The Observer, yesterday President Bush tried to deflect attention away from his many domestic problems by calling attention to his war in Iraq.

That’s how politically bankrupt he is.

Other presidential administrations have come back from low points and scandals and finished strong. But such a comeback requires attributes of character that I do not believe Bush possesses.

Dan Balz writes in today’s Washington Post:

Friday’s indictment of Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby dealt another big blow to public confidence in the administration, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Bush’s approval rating fell to 39 percent — the lowest recorded by this poll in his presidency — and a majority of Americans said the charges signal broader ethical problems in the administration. By a ratio of 3 to 1, those surveyed said the level of honesty in government has declined during Bush’s tenure.

With its ability to command public attention and frame the national agenda, the presidency is a supremely resilient institution, and such recent occupants as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton have bounced back from adversity. But Bush faces such a complex set of problems — an unpopular war in Iraq, high energy prices, the costly challenge of rebuilding New Orleans, a fractured party, disaffected independent voters and little goodwill on Capitol Hill — that his prospects are particularly daunting.

Beyond that is the question of whether Bush needs to make fundamental adjustments to a governing and political style that has given him electoral success but also left the country deeply polarized. With his Republican base showing signs of discontent and independent voters more disaffected than ever, Bush faces a potential tradeoff on every important decision ahead of him that could cause him to lose as much ground with one part of the public as he gains with another.

Whether he can devise a strategy that successfully navigates between the right and the center may determine just how much he can achieve for himself and his party through the rest of his presidency.

This paragraph from the Balz article highlights Bush’s essential problem:

The president’s advisers recognize the reality in which they find themselves. “What the public wants is back-to-basics governance and decision making,” presidential counselor Dan Bartlett said yesterday. “This is not a situation in which it changes overnight or that there’s a ‘Hail Mary’ pass that changes the dynamic. . . . There’s not a magic bullet.”

The public wants back-to-basics governance and decision making, do they? Then they’ve got the wrong guy in the White House. The essential, terrible truth about the Bush White House is that the Bushies are not serious about governance. This has always been true, but not until the winds of Katrina blew away much of Bush’s facade have so many Americans understood this. Not only had Bush packed FEMA with political cronies instead of serious professionals, but he was so disinterested in the effects of a massive hurricane on the Gulf Coast that his staff had to do an intervention to get him to pay attention.

The Bushie attitude toward governing is exemplified by the famous episode in which Paul O’Neill, then secretary of the treasury, warned that another round of big tax cuts would cause budget deficits. Dick Cheney replied, “You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.” In other words, we don’t have to worry that deficits will hurt us politically, and we don’t give a bleep about the long-term effect of deficits on the nation’s economy.

Bush himself seems disconnected even from policies that interest him. He went all-out to sell Social Security “privatization” but doesn’t appear to have bothered his head about the details, like how to pay for it. As I’ve written before, Bush speaks of the passage of No Child Left Behind Act as a great achievement. Yet he’s shown no interest in fixing problems with the program to make it work as promised.

George W. Bush appears to be a “magic bullet” kind of guy. I have read that his oil businesses failed because he was determined to make a big strike rather than slowly and patiently build a business. “To George W. Bush, a Texan who revels in the myth of the wildcatter, running risks in pursuit of the big gusher is a quintessential part of the American character,” says this May 16, 2005 Business Week article. “But as the scion of an aristocratic Eastern dynasty, the budding young tycoon always had a network of family friends and relations to call on. Those golden connections bailed George W. out of his early forays into the oil business.”

As president, Bush struck a political bonanza in September 11. But his biggest gamble was the war in Iraq. See how he threw the dice–he (and his advisors) bet there would be WMDs in spite of flimsy evidence. He and his crew assumed no post-invasion planning would be required, since the happy Iraqis quickly would establish a democracy as soon as they were finished tossing flowers. And he and his crew seemed to believe that the mere removal of Saddam Hussein would be the magic bullet that would bring peace to the Middle East. Why bother with boring ol’ nation building when you’ve got a magic bullet?

Once he realized he’d taken a political hit from his inept response to Katrina, Bush worked hard–to find another “bullhorn moment.” One event after another was staged to show Bush in action. Yet FEMA and the rest the Department of Homeland Security still seem to be drifting. Bush has a rare gift for getting his picture taken with firemen, but whipping a drifting department of his administration into shape is beyond his skill.

After nearly four years of all-Republican rule, 68 percent of American adults are dissatisfied with the direction of the country, according to the Gallup “right track/wrong track” poll. This number was at 28 percent in December 2001, but has risen steadily as Bush’s 9/11 glow has faded. And now people are hungry for “back-to-basics governance” instead of big gambles and photo ops. And I don’t believe Bush can give them that. Even if he tried, which is unlikely, he couldn’t do it. He doesn’t have it in him.