I don’t have much to say about former Bush strategist Matthew Dowd’s public break with the President except to wonder what took him so long. Take a look at the New York Times summary of Dowd’s objections:

He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Mr. Bush still approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides.

These shortcomings were all obvious by mid-2004, yet Dowd was chief strategist for Bush’s re-election campaign. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

Two larger points:

(1) It’s interesting how neatly Dowd fits into the pattern of people who were temporarily jolted from their Democratic tendencies by the intersection of Clinton hatred/fatigue and 9/11 but are now returning to the fold. He was a Democratic strategist who “was disappointed by the Bill Clinton years” and “impressed by the pledge of Mr. Bush, then governor of Texas, to bring a spirit of cooperation to Washington.” Look how well that worked out.

(2) Where are all the other Bush dissidents? Considering the policy record and unpopularity of this administration, it’s remarkable that Dowd is the first high-profile dissident since Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill. Other administrations have taken serious hits from former top officials and advisers (see, for instance, Dick Morris and George Stephanopoulos during the Clinton administration). But even disgruntled ex-Bushies like Colin Powell have laid low this time. Will that change in the next year? Maybe George Tenet’s upcoming book will be the next big break…