Well I am a day late but here is “The big story” I was working on. Yesterday I was very honored to have the opportunity to speak for a bout 45 minutes with Fred Barnes (whose notable work will be detailed in just a moment) about his new book Rebel in Chief.

I finished the book about two weeks ago on my plane ride home from San Antonio I highly recommend it. It is a very quick read. If you are a George W. Bush fan you have to buy this book! It will remind you exactly why you like the man so much. If you hate George W. Bush you need to buy this book right now! To help you understand why those of us who do, admire him so much. Rebel in Chief I think accurately portrays who George Bush is and how he views the War on terror, the media the Washington establishment and other things. It also has some very astute observations from Mr. Barnes as well.

Before we got started Mr. Barnes asked me how long I had been blogging and how I got started. I told him since October of last year and that Hugh Hewitt had suggested it one day when I called in to his radio show.

Mr. Barnes who is a regular guest on Hewitt’s show replied “Hugh is a great evangelist for blogs”.

I hope you all enjoy it half as much as I did. So enough of the small talk lets get to the interview.

UA: First of all thank you for agreeing to the interview Mr. Barnes I am a fan of your work including the book.

FB: No problem, I like talking about my book and other things as well.

UA: I noticed you appear on the Laura Ingraham’s show in the mornings occasionally.

FB: When she Calls me, I love to do it. I like Laura. You wouldn’t have thought she would be a person with a face for radio but it turns out she’s really done well. She’s very attractive and extremely smart. On radio she is extremely smart. I will tell you what my test is when I am outside the beltway and people ask me about things and people say hey do you know Laura Ingraham… and I proudly say yes.

UA: Ok so you are a regular on Hugh Hewitt’s show in the afternoons.

On Fridays we do it. Yeah

UA: And then you are almost daily on special report on Fox.

FB: Yup When I am in town I am there

UA: So then on Sunday’s you’re with Chris Wallace on Fox.

FB: Well no I am just a fill in there. I don’t do it regularly I do it occasionally.

UA: Ok and then you have your own show the Beltway boys.

FB: Yea I do that on Saturday.

UA: And then you write for the Weekly Standard, you are the Executive Editor of the Weekly Standard.

FB: Right.

UA: And then you do Op Eds once in a while.

FB: Well I try to do them for the Wall Street Journal you know once every three or four weeks, and they ask me and I am always glad to do them.

UA: And then of course you have this 200 page book so my first question is how many clones do you have?

FB: Well one of the great things bout having spent 20 years in the newspaper business is you learn to write pretty fast. You’re not allowed to have writers block, and I have never really had it. And so it’s not a problem there. You know I wrote a book about somebody I already knew a lot about to begin with, so that made that easier. I wasn’t starting from Scratch on the subject of Bush, and it was easier to write than I thought. It was about 55,000 words, that’s about half the length of a regular book I would say, but I like short books and was glad to do it, and the other stuff you know I have been at this stuff a long time. It’s amazing how much you can do if you put your mind to it. On television we are usually doing thing on Brit Hume’s show Special report that I have reported on anyway. Tonight I think we are going to do the immigration issue and I forget what the other thing is.

UA: So how early does your day normally start?

FB: Oh usually I get up between 6:30 and 7.

UA: That’s not too bad I would have assumed it was earlier.

FB: No that’s not too bad and I get newspapers here at my house. I get 4 papers. I read the Washington post first then the wall street journal then the Washington times and the truth is I rarely get to the New York Times.

UA: Well I have to ask about your article now on Monday where you were suggesting these wholesale changes in the administration, but it really was moving people around instead of out. Were you serious at all with that?

FB: Yea I was serious about it. Because I think this administration needs a spark and it needs a new face and so on. Presidents have a great power and that is they can change the subject. And moving people around and bringing in some new people certainly bringing in a Joe Lieberman would help the Whitehouse. Here is someone who is in totally sympathy with the president’s foreign policy and the war on terrorism and he would be a real asset. But generally the kind of thing I had in mind here was kind of a shock and awe policy. Bush you know has rolled the dice before. I just think he needs to do it again. Presidents can just really fade away in their second term if they don’t watch out and I think that’s what he faces if they can’t really shake the doldrums.

UA: Now taking into account how you document in the book Rebel in Chief how stubbornly loyal he is and how sure he is of his decisions do you think there is any chance of your suggestion happening?

FB: No. Look there may be some, I think there are going to probably have to be some personnel changes but I was proposing rather sweeping ones and these were just off the top of my head. People have wondered whether I was reflecting the views of somebody in the white house and it was a trial balloon and it wasn’t that. But you know I just saw his press conference on Tuesday, My Piece was Monday on Tuesday he said No! He’s not making any changes.

UA: He did make it pretty clear at his press conference didn’t he?

FB: Yeah. He said it twice actually in separate questions on the subject and that’s about what I expected. You know most presidents loyalty is a one way street. For him it’s a two way street and that’s very admirable. But at the moment that’s not working.

UA: that’s one of the things I like about him for sure.

FB: Yeah I do too but I just think he has to really get a grip on his presidency and maybe not be so loyal downward.

UA: Now I definitely got the feeling from reading the book that you were a George Bush fan. Are you?

FB: Well I wouldn’t say a fan necessarily. I wouldn’t use that word. That’s because in journalism you really aren’t supposed to be a fan but I am certainly sympathetic to his presidency. I would say that. And I think he’s fashioned conservatism in a way that has a future where as some of the other brands of conservatism really don’t anymore.

UA: I definitely want to ask you about that later too. How many time were you able to interview the president for the book.?

FB: Once and it was after I had actually written the book and I really had to work hard to get an interview with him. You know people they see some reporter in Washington who is sympathetic to the Bush Whitehouse and they think you are a pal of the president. It doesn’t work that way. I had to work hard to get an interview and finally I finished the book in June of 2005 and I finally got an interview with the president the end of July of 2005. Now obviously I was able to put a lot of quotes in the book from the president but it was hard to get it. It was easy to get anyone from Cheney on Down but the president wasn’t easy.

You know the president doesn’t call me to come by and watch basketball games on TV. You know there is a real wall between the president and the press even if they are conservatives who happen to be sympathetic to his presidency. The president and I aren’t friends. We are acquaintances obviously and I admire some of the things he’s done in his presidency particularly in foreign policy and social security and some things like that but were not pals. It doesn’t work that way. He doesn’t call me at home.

UA: I know you mention in the book too how this rumor of him inviting Brit Hume over to play tennis is not true.

FB: Yeah that was his dad and it’s not true but it still lingers. It lives.

UA: Now you mention in the book how president Bushes opponents continually misunderestimate him to use the word. Do you think his democratic adversaries really think he is stupid?

FB: Yeah I think a lot of them do. They think he is stupid and they think he is a tool of Dick Cheney or Karl Rove and it’s obviously not true. Look anybody who saw his press conference yesterday had to think that he’s a master at that form. He did awfully well.

UA: Absolutely.

FB: With goofy or accusatory reporters.

UA: If they really think that how stupid do they have to be to keep being beaten by him?

FB: Yeah I know well they never reflect that deeply. At least they don’t seem to. You know going back to the college boards, we know that his College Board scores were higher than Al Gore’s who they think is so smart. But its what Karl Rove calls the M and M factor Midland and Methodism and bush talks like a guy from west Texas and that to people in the Washington and the Boston corridor means they are ignorant. I mean they thought Ronald Reagan was dumb. Here he was one of the most historically important presidents we have ever had and they think he was a dope.

Where as who do they think was so smart Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and they were smart they just weren’t leaders and Reagan and Bush are leaders.

UA: And Reagan now is vindicated by history.

FB: Well I think he has but it only came recently you know it really didn’t occur until he died and with the funeral and everything in 2004 and then I think the conclusion was inescapable that he had been a remarkably but before that a lot of people resisted it.

UA: You compare George Bush pretty favorably to FDR and Teddy Roosevelt. Do you think he will measure up historically?

FB: Well a lot depends on Iraq and the war on terrorism and the crusade for democracy which are you know one big package. And I think there is probably a better than 50 50 chance of that. I think we are going to see success in Iraq. I mean look Iraq is a free country. If you want to go there and start a newspaper you can. You can do a radio station. Start a political party; go right ahead. It’s a free country. It’s just not a peaceful country at the moment but even now we can see how limited the effectiveness of the insurgency is. They are not really able to bring down any of the infrastructure there. I mean they are left to bombing innocent Iraqis and mosques. I mean the truth is we are winning.

UA: I agree, now in rebel in chief you talk quite a bit about the president’s adversarial relationship with the press and early on you describe a part of a traditional off the record lunch the president has with the news anchors before the state of the union address.

FB: Yeah it was in 2005. Of course there was another one this January as well.

UA: Let me read a little part from the book, It says for instance Woodruff (that’s Judy woodruff from CNN) says the critics worry the president is resolved to take on tyrannies everywhere. And George Bush replies “I wasn’t aware that was a criticism. “

How does she respond to that, I mean what happens does she sneer at him or does turn red with embarrassment or I mean what happens?

FB: that’s a good question, if I knew I would have put it in there. But you know I wasn’t at the lunch because I am not an anchor. And I just had to talk to some others who were there and that would have been a good thing to know and I would have put it in. I think he just moved on to the next question but the truth is I don’t know.

UA: I would love to see not only how she reacted but how some of the other guys in the room reacted. Do these anchors do you believe they have any respect for President Bush at all?

FB: Not a lot and although it depends on which one you mean but I would say minimal high regard in general, Brit Hume is pretty respectful. I have just known Brit longer than the rest of them there because we have been friends since high school.

UA: You’ve known Brit Hume since High School I didn’t know that.

FB: Yeah we went college together at the University of Virginia and so we went into the same line of work and so we have been friends for a long time. But the others I am not sure. You know I think someone like Wolf Blitzer who is a very fair reporter is someone who may not admire Bush but is certainly respectful.

UA: Right, do you believe the president has respect for them?

FB: Not Much. Very little, I mean he soured on the press a long time ago particularly when he came to Washington in 1992 to help his dad get reelected and saw basically the whole town bail on his father including people who worked for him and he really did develop a negative attitude toward the press and reporters and the whole media establishment in Washington and there hasn’t been much to change his view. That’s for sure.

UA: Something I am curious about and you talk about this in the book as well is how do journalists if you care to talk about generally get all these unnamed sources who leak anything from embarrassing little tidbits to national secrets. I mean what’s in it for the leakers.

FB: You know I have often wondered that. You know sometimes you get information just because you ask somebody a question and they will answer it. IN the national security area that’s a little different when somebody is leaking really sensitive information about say the NSA spying effort. There is somebody who has an agenda who wants to hurt the administration and the war on terrorism and perhaps in Iraq.

Sometimes people have an agenda and look there are a lot of people working in the Bush administration who are not fans of the president they work for. They are permanent members of the state department or other agencies and they leak against him. They tend not to talk to me but they talk to a lot of people at the Washington post, or the New York Times or Newsweek or time or so on. Some of these people they think they are the government. The presidents come and go but they are still here and they think of themselves as more important and they think presidents ought to follow their policies. And president bush has not done that particularly in foreign affairs.

UA: And we didn’t elect them and I know you talk about that in the book as well.

FB: Yeah well they seem to think that they you know elections their fine but we really have to leave it to the experts and the smart people to handle things like foreign policy.

UA: In the book you say President Bush doesn’t have the typical Jeffersonian conservative view of less government is better but a Hamiltonian one where it’s a valuable tool to provide security and prosperity and the common good.

FB: Look he’s not a small government conservative he’s not particularly a states righter either and of course Jefferson was both of those. He is someone who accepts that fact that we have big government in Washington and certainly conservatives have from Reagan to Gingrich.

I think he has been successful with some of his policies like the no child left behind program but obviously not as successful with social security. But it’s a different way of looking at government and I have sadly concluded and reluctantly concluded that we are going to have big government in Washington basically because people now expect the government to help them on heath care and some of these other things that the founding fathers never envisioned the federal government ever being involved in. but we are stuck with it so why not use it to as great an extent as possible for conservative ends. And that’s what Bush tries to do.

UA: Are there any other Republicans like him? Is he convincing other republicans to come to his brand of republicanism?

FB: Well some of them are there you know not philosophically but in effect a lot of members of congress are but there are two different things I think, in the amount of spending and a large government. In other words you can have a large government that does many things and still not have extravagant spending. In other words you don’t have to have a huge farm bill you can have a smaller farm bill and even though the government is still involved in farming. The problem I think the president has had is he has irritated a lot of conservatives and rightly so is he hasn’t tried hard enough at least in his first term to hold down spending. He could have vetoed a few things productively. It’s a little hard for a republican president to veto bills that are passed overwhelmingly by a republican congress.

UA: Kind of the whole theme of the book: the title Rebel in Chief pretty much explains itself. It’s not just liberal ideas or democratic policies or the media it’s the Washington establishment as a whole even republican lobbyists and policy experts. Do the republicans in the establishment resent him for that?

FB: Yeah I think so. They resent him because they haven’t been tapped for advice for jobs. He’s ignored them. The president was asked about this yesterday. What about bringing in some grey beards some wise hands from Washington. Well the president doesn’t want that. They are specifically the people he doesn’t want in his administration. You know he has resisted them as much as possible. The Dave Gergans and the ken Duberstiens and all those people he doesn’t want to hire them and that’s why he’s brought in so many people from Texas or people who were already in Washington but were not conventional figures they were kind of rebels like Paul Wolfowits and you know the president he doesn’t like the social scene in Washington he doesn’t like the establishment he doesn’t like the foreign policy community he doesn’t like the political lobbying establishment. These are people he doesn’t mix with. And he thinks they are part of the problem. And he has really just stayed away from that during his entire presidency.

UA: Do you agree with him on that point that they are all part of the problem?

FB: Yeah I do. I have lived here my whole life. And if you throw in with the Washington establishment you will have an easy time in Washington but the chance of changing history. No way.

UA: I think Most Americans agree with that as well.

FB: But when you hit bumps in the road you don’t find many friends. As Harry Truman said if you want a friend in Washington get a dog.

UA: Do you think anybody in Washington really understands why George Bush doesn’t like them?

FB: Not many. You know that’s a good question. I hadn’t really thought about that.

UA: They think he’s just a hayseed and he’s not refined enough to get along with them.

FB: Yeah, they think of it as not strength. The way I write about it in the book of course is that this is strength of president bush and his presidency. They think of it as a huge flaw that he’s not tapping them and he should know better and they haven’t been able to corral him.

UA: You talk about in Rebel in Chief how President Bush and Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair really have this close relationship. Tell us how that came about.

FB: Well it came about really for two reasons. One of course was the need for the British Prime minister to maintain the special relationship between England and the United States. And its something that Blair really understood. It’s a bigger deal for Blair. Because Blair believes that there is a great tradition between prime ministers and presidents whether it’s Reagan and Thatcher or FDR and Churchill. You know the second half of the twentieth century the special relationship really became something. So Blair wants to maintain it and then there was 9/11. And Blair understood what it meant where as most foreign leaders did not right away. And threw in with bush immediately and in fact had even talked earlier I cite from a speech in Chicago that Blair gave I think in 2000 but it might have been 1999 talking about dealing with terrorists and failed countries that have become tyrannies. Very much he and bush just agree on what they need to do in the world. It certainly hasn’t helped Blair politically in England or even in his own labor party. But it really is post 9/11 there was really a coming together.

UA: Do you think History is going judge Tony Blair favorably?

FB: Well If I have anything to say about it yes. Because the conservative party over there is pretty feckless and Blair is an amazing leader and a great eloquent spokesman for the Bush brand of foreign policy one that’s internationalist its pro democracy its anti terrorist and I think it’s the foreign policy for now and for the future. You know if Blair looses office it’s really going to be a blow to Bush. Not having this great articulate strong ally who speaks the same language.

Chirac and others they were sympathetic to the United States after 9/11 but they weren’t talking about a war on terrorism. But Blair was keen on that.

UA: I think it will be a blow not only to George Bush but it will be a blow to the next president as well.

FB: Yes I agree.

UA: We are not likely to get an ally like him.

FB: Yeah we are not and its amazing he comes from the labor party but that’s fine guys like Tony Blair don’t come along very often that’s for sure. When you see some of the lesser leaders; Margaret Thatcher was great but when you see the post Churchill prime ministers in England they haven’t been that great.

UA: One of the things that won me over to George Bush.; I call myself a classic liberal by the way. My liberal friends call me a Neocon but whatever.

FB: I can understand that.

UA: One of the things that won me over were his comments right after 9/11 in the rubble of the world trade center his address to the joint session of congress. You mention some of his private conversations on September 11th in the book. Can you talk about some of them?

FB: Yes you know one of his reactions was and it wouldn’t have been every presidents reaction was that “were at war” I think within 10 minutes he mentioned that to Dick Cheney over the phone Cheney was back in Washington. Of course Bush was first in Florida Then Louisiana then Nebraska, then he flew back for a talk to the country on that evening Tuesday evening September 11th and he mentioned it to any number of people. I chronicle it in the book that we’re at war this was his reaction that we’re at war this is something that’s going to take a long time. That there is a world wide group of Islamic extremists that want to bring down the united states and kill Americans and that we are going to have to fight them and its not just a law enforcement activity its not just going to be stepped up law enforcement but its going to be a war and we need to go on offense against it. And it was an atypical reaction for an American president I don’t think it would have been Al Gore’s reaction. It wasn’t Tom Daschle’s reaction but it was Bush’s and it was extremely important that that’s what it was.

UA: In the book you call it the republican ascendancy and in the past I have heard you call it realignment. Can you tell us what that is?

FB: Well you see what’s happened over the last, let’s say when Reagan was elected that helped Republicans come a little closer but it really accelerated after 1994 when Republicans took the house and the senate they have held them. If you trace the party ID of voters at polls you know 25 years ago there was still by 20 points they were Democrats or 15 points or whatever it was and it came down to voting in 2004 they were more self identified Republicans than there were self Identified Democrats and its just slowly come to that and republicans are a narrow majority party. They are a 51% party which is I think the phrase that Mike Barone has used. Now at the moment it doesn’t look like they are going to do very well in the election this fall. We may go back to a 49 49 situation but the Republicans have at least established a parody situation. What matters is how you do in elections not how you do in polls Democrats always poll very well after loosing an election. But right now Republicans have a majority they control the white house, a majority in the house and the senate, among governors and a majority among state legislators and I think a plurality among state legislatures. That makes them a majority party and Bush has accelerated that. In the 2000 2002 particularly in 2002 and 2004 he has brought that about.

UA: So you think George Bush if not his type of conservatism at least George Bush himself is helping move forward realignment?

FB: Well look what happened in 2002 it’s supposed to be a year where the party that controls the Whitehouse looses seats. He was very actively involved and republicans won house and senate seats. Took back control of the senate after James Jeffords of Vermont joined the Democratic Caucus switching from the Republican to the Democratic Caucus. And then they won more seats in 2004 in the house and senate. So republicans have come very close before but Bush put them over the top. Narrowly but over the top.

UA: You talk about the new conservatism in the book and let me quote just a bit here “A typical conservative believes in three things small government with low taxes, traditional values including sanctity of life, and hawkish foreign policy. In the next paragraph you say George Bush isn’t one of them. Often he has sounded like anything but a conservative. He has attracted supporters by appealing to their liberal instincts.

You are talking about guys like me.

FB: Well he’s done it particularly on issues like Immigration he’s done it on foreign policy where he has seized the mantle of Idealism that the democrats used to have. He has it now. He is the crusader for Democracy. Of course in domestic policy he is a strong government conservative and not a weak or small government conservative so that puts him at odds on a number of issues. And then of course you know the Medicare drug benefit that he pushed through in 2003 I wouldn’t say was conservative at all though it looks like its going to be very successful particularly politically. But it’s not a conservative idea to add another entitlement.

UA: Would you call George Bush a Neocon or Paleocon or is there a word that describes him?

FB: Well he’s certainly not a Paleocon, I think a Neocon is a much narrower group of people I know a lot of them. My colleague Bill Kristol is certainly one. But he has certainly adopted many of their policies. I mean when has a president been more pro Israel than George Bush? We haven’t had one. We have had some pretty pro Israel presidents like Reagan and Harry Truman but Bush has gone further than that. So while he has adopted a lot of those Ideas I would say he’s not a Neocon. He is a different kind of conservative. I do a whole chapter on Bush conservatism. It is different and it’s met with some resistance among other conservatives.

UA: I have just a couple more questions here for you. In the book you talk about an amazing achievement by the Republican Party in 2004 they acquired an email list of 7.5 million names.

FB: Amazing yeah.

UA: How did that compare to the Democratic Parties effort or the republican parties efforts in the past? A huge change?

FB: Well it was a huge change and many people were dubious about it was the ability of Republicans to field over a million volunteers and have these people that could really do their job of one signing up voters and two getting them to the polls. Now Democrats did a great job with all that George Soros money that financed some of these organizations that did register and get voters to the polls. The truth is Democrats did an extraordinary job of voter registration and turn out but it was just with these enthusiastic 1.2 million volunteers that Republicans did better. You know Democrats that it was just talk on the part of Republicans who were going to be able to field all these volunteers and turn out all these voters and yet they did it and it was a great achievement. I have never seen anything like it. It was pretty much the work of Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman.

UA: Do you think blogs played any part in that?

FB: Well I tell you who does think that is Ken Mehlman and so does Karl Rove. You know they really believe that the bloggers were just an incredibly important source of communication and also of volunteers. So they relied on them a lot, they communicated with them a lot and continue to. I think they take them much more seriously than Democrats.

UA: Do you know if the President reads any blogs?

FB: I don’t. You know that’s a good question. I am not sure. That is a good question.

UA: How about you do you read any blogs and if so who are your favorites?

FB: Well let’s see I read Real Clear politics, Powerline, Hugh’s blog of course. The neat thing about Hugh’s blog is he has these links to other blogs and they are all pretty good. Drudge, you have to read that. Brit Hume that’s the first thing he looks at in the morning. Then Captains Quarters thats a good one, The Kause Files Mickey is a smart guy. I don’t do it myself. It would be an overdose for me. I just love the democratic impact of people who blog. I am all for it.

****End of Interview*******

This is where I run out of tape which tells me I have taken quite a bit of Mr. Barnes’ time so I apologize for take so much time thank him for the interview and leave it there. I had about 10 more questions to ask and several more follow ups that I would have loved to ask him based on his answers. Hopefully after reading this I will get another chance to speak with him some time and ask a few of them.

This post is linked to the following blogs who are hosting open track backs today: Blue Star Chronicles,, Right Wing Nation,