I found this NBC News interview with Card while researching for a GD thread. Over there, I kept jumping up and down and asking “WTF was this about?” but everyone was too busy arguing the partisan point (which was, to be fair, the actual topic of the thread). So I turn to you here.
The relevant portions of the interview (emphases mine):
The reporter asked some decent follow-up questions, but I really wish she would have zeroed in on the “invite a question or start a dialogue” bit. Why would this have been inappropriate? And isn’t that a *president’s *job, to decide whether to ask a question or start a dialogue? I mean, I understand that the chief of staff has to act as a filter and not tell the president every little thing. But as Card also noted, about something like this, he “had to tell the president”; “the president needs to know”. From there, why wouldn’t it be up to the president to decide how much more he needs to know?
I’d imagine it would be because they were in public.
It is shocking news, and something that any normal person would ask follow up questions about -
HOWEVER,
Reading a story in front of a bunch of kids, with the press at the back of the room, is absolutely not the place to be having a dialogue about what happened, who was responsible or what should be done next.
So I’d say the main reason for “not wanting to invite dialogue” was to limit the public exposure until such time as Bush could issue a thought through response.
All the above, plus, at that exact moment we had no idea what was precisely going on. I’m sure there is a relationship between the Chiefs of Staff and the President. If something is told in a particular way it means something.
So…he didn’t trust Bush to know his surroundings and decide what would be appropriate? This just comes across as the hierarchy of management in the Oval being somehow different from what it is generally understood to be.
I think this is one of the many little (yet important) decision a Chief of Staff has to make. I read this recently also and thought a bit about it. I think that Card decided that it would be best to “nudge” the president towards not responding with a question because he felt he was only informing the president—not opening a dialog. A CoS is one of the president’s handlers so it’s his job—not the president’s—to be concerned about the president’s public presentation and appearance. The decider’s job is just that. To decide things.
But as I said—it was just a “nudge”. Obviously if the prez wanted to ask a question he would have, and Card knew that.
That’s how I see it, too. Don’t invite questions when you have no answers, and it’s definitely appropriate for CoS to help guide the pres especially regarding public appearances. I don’t think this reflects poorly on anyone involved.
If you read in detail about ANY modern administration, you’ll probably come across some reference to the Chief of Staff controlling access to the President and making decisions on his behalf. Depending on the source and bias of the information, it can even sound like the Chief of Staff is almost keeping the President prisoner in the Oval Office, away from anybody who might be trying to get certain information to the President.
The President was on camera when Card spoke to him. He didn’t want to expose the President to the risk of accidentally blurting out something in the surprise of the moment.
It’s not like there was a neutral option that didn’t convey some meaning to the President. I imagine everything the Chief of Staff does in relating to the President (especially on camera) is fraught with potential meaning, and it’s the CoS’s job to be aware of that and make sure that only the correct meanings are conveyed. It’s as much about what is NOT communicated. Standing there waiting for a response would have effectively required a response from the President (even if nothing more than him saying, “Ok, I don’t need anything else from you right now”). Giving him the message and then fucking off as quickly and unobtrusively as possible probably was the most neutral option available, but of course when it’s said explicitly it sounds like Card is overthinking and/or being manipulative. But that’s his job.
I will add that Card arguably failed in his job here, since it appears that Bush read Card’s actions as saying, “There’s nothing else needed from you; I’ll let you get back to what you were doing.” I’d say that’s more Bush’s failure than Card’s, but it’s debatable.