C4P Interviews Matt Latimer

There has recently been quite a bit of discussion in the blogosphere and in political circles about a book by a speechwriter for former President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The book, Speech-less: Tales of a White House Survivor, was written by Matt Latimer. He subsequently wrote a piece for The Daily Beast, “Why Palin Mania Won’t Die,” which helped lead C4P to an email interview with him.

Conservatives 4 Palin asked Mr. Latimer questions ranging from his views on the future of the Republican Party to his response to the criticism he’s faced as a result of writing his book. The full Q&A follows (C4P’s questions are labeled “C4P” and are in italics; Mr. Latimer’s responses are labeled “Latimer” and are not italicized):

C4P: Can you give us a brief synopsis of your book, and explain what prompted you to write it?

Latimer: I am a Reagan conservative, and the child of liberal Democrats from a union family in Flint, Michigan. I long dreamed of coming to Washington to be a speechwriter for a conservative President and help usher in a second Reagan Revolution. It didn’t turn out that way, and what I learned along the way provides a warning to conservatives who want to change things. (I desperately hope Governor Palin will read the book, for example.)

The list of problems I encountered is long. We failed to engage the media and Democrats in a war of ideas, often because conservatives were outnumbered in their own party and other Republicans turned away from what they believed in. With massive overspending, the enlargement of the federal government, and reversals on a host of issues, we let the conservative movement down.

I wanted to write a book – making it fun and lighthearted where possible – that provided testimony about what happened to the conservative movement at the hands of the Republican elites. I hope the book is a roadmap for conservatives’ post-Bush recovery.


C4P: A number of your former colleagues have stated that you were only peripherally involved in the White House and have questioned the amount of access you had. How do you answer those charges?

Latimer: Well, I always had a cordial relationship with the people I worked with at the White House and I’m sorry to hear that from them. The fact is I was promoted to being one of the President’s top writers in early 2008. Among other things, I wrote his major speech to CPAC (his first in eight years to the group), drafted remarks after Russia’s invasion of Georgia and was one of the top two writers on his address to the nation after the economic crisis. In fact, after less than a year at the White House, I was promoted to deputy director of speechwriting and met with President Bush regularly. Not a single speech went to the President without my name on it as a writer or editor. When I decided to leave the White House in October 2008, President Bush kindly asked me to delay my departure because of the important role I was playing.


C4P: Some people are bothered by the fact that you wrote a "tell all" book about your behind the scenes experiences, considering it unprofessional and a breach of trust. How would you answer those people?

Latimer: There is a wonderful tradition of former presidential aides writing books about their times with Presidents – from William Safire to Peggy Noonan to Mike Gerson and so on. I worked for President Bush – and was proud to have had the opportunity. I also worked for the American people. I decided they had a right to see what I saw – particularly the administration’s departure from conservative principles. Many other people will be writing their own books about their experiences and conversations – including President Bush, of course. I look forward to reading their perspectives.

The group attacking me are really members of the Beltway club that doesn’t like being exposed for what they did to the Republican Party. They claim they were protecting the President by attacking my book – though many people think Bush comes out just fine. In truth, they are protecting themselves.


C4P: Many readers of Conservatives 4 Palin may have first heard of your book through a Huffington Post article. That particular article quoted your book as saying that when former President George W. Bush was informed that then Governor Sarah Palin had been selected by Senator John McCain as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee that President Bush said:

"I'm trying to remember if I've met her before. I'm sure I must have." His eyes twinkled, then he asked, "What is she, the governor of Guam?"

The article also quoted your book as saying:

“This woman is being put into a position she is not even remotely prepared for," [Bush] said. "She hasn't spent one day on the national level. Neither has her family. Let's wait and see how she looks five days out." It was a rare dose of reality in a White House that liked to believe every decision was great, every Republican was a genius, and McCain was the hope of the world because, well, because he chose to be a member of our party.

These passages have been widely interpreted to mean that President Bush didn't believe that Governor Palin was a good pick to serve as Senator McCain's running mate. In an interview with Neil Cavuto, you explained that former President Bush was making a lighthearted joke with regard to the question about Palin being the Governor of Guam. And that he was referring to the media attention that former Governor Palin and her family would receive during the campaign for the latter quote.

Which is the accurate representation? Could you please clarify these quotes?

Latimer: Leave it to the mainstream media to spin a story the way they want it (What a surprise, right?). As I clearly indicated in my book, President Bush made the “Guam” comment with “a twinkle in his eye.” He was clearly joking. Anyone who knew President knew he had a sense of humor about such things.

I interpreted the President’s subsequent comment about the governor to mean that he was worried that she and her family were [not] prepared for the media onslaught that was about to hit them. I did not interpret – and I never claimed – that the President’s comment meant that he didn’t like Governor Palin or thought she wasn’t qualified.

In my own view, the McCain campaign sent Palin out without helping her prepare for the media spotlight. And they also, clearly, placed aides with her who didn’t particularly like or respect her.


C4P: Do you personally feel that Palin was a good pick, or was not a good pick to serve as McCain's running mate?

Latimer: Governor Palin did something for the McCain campaign that McCain never could. She galvanized conservatives. They started showing up at McCain events – finally outnumbering the members of the media (McCain’s self-described “base”) who usually showed up. So in that sense, she was a good pick. Having said that, I was more cautious than other conservatives at the White House were about her. I’d seen so many of the other people they had gotten enthusiastic for – such as Harriet Miers – turn out not to be as great as they initially thought.

But people now forget how popular Governor Palin was when she was announced. She helped McCain pull ahead in the polls. Things went south after that – but I think it’s clear that the people who staffed her played a large role in undermining her. In my view, the real problem for the McCain-Palin ticket was the top, not the bottom. McCain made his mark by running against us, not with us. In my book, I called making John McCain the leader of the Republican Party the same as putting Camilla Parker Bowles as head of the Princess Diana Foundation.


C4P: Steve Schmidt, the former McCain campaign manager, recently said that there may be a catastrophic election result for the GOP if Governor Palin is the Republican nominee against in 2012. Do you agree or disagree with his assessment? Could you explain why?

Latimer: I disagree. By the way, the last person I’d take advice from is Steve Schmidt. (How many electoral votes did McCain win against a relative political novice on the national scene?) These people may have missed it – but the catastrophe has already come to the Republican Party from people who departed form conservatism in favor of pseudo-Republicans that the media might like. There is a reason why the number of people identifying themselves as Republicans is at an all-time low. Nobody knows what we stand for anymore.

Whether Governor Palin wins the nomination or not, I welcome conservatives like her into the race who actually believe in our philosophy rather than consultant-led robots who just tell us what we want to hear to get elected.


C4P: As a speechwriter, what did you think of Palin's acceptance speech at the RNC? What is your assessment of Palin as a speaker? Are there particular kinds of speeches that play to her strengths?

Latimer: My advice for the governor is to outline a positive conservative agenda that emphasizes prosperity and liberty. We crave that, instead of simply the talking point of the day against Obama (although he merits criticism, don’t get me wrong.)

I think the best speech she can give is one that lets her be herself – that turns her perceived “weaknesses” into advantages. No, she doesn’t talk the way people in Washington talk. No, she isn’t as polished and slick as some of the others out there – the lobbyist types and Rombots. And maybe, even, she learned some things from her debut on the national ticket. She is Sarah Palin, warts and all. A working mother, and a grandmother, who believes the Republican Party has lost its way and needs a positive agenda to come back. Instead of just waiting for the Democrats to collapse. Palin needs to talk about how hard it was to stand up to the Alaska establishment. (She also needs to explain why she resigned her post as governor early.)

As for her convention speech, I thought it was a well-crafted, well-delivered speech with effective attacks. But I think again the McCain campaign didn’t know how to make the best use of her. I think it might have helped the Governor if she had a chance to use the speech to define herself even more, along the lines I just mentioned, since the McCain campaign had no idea how to do it.


C4P: There is an ongoing debate within the Republican Party about the direction in which the party should head. In an interview at the end of 2008, Colin Powell warned that the Republican Party needed to move to the center because the demographics of the United States were changing. Furthermore, earlier this year in a speech, Mr. Powell remarked, “Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less.” Do you believe that the Republican Party needs to move to a more moderate position in terms of policy in order to win elections?

Latimer: (Laughing) No, no, no, no no. And I’m not sure a Democrat necessarily has the Republican Party’s best interest in mind.

I think it’s wonderful to welcome different voices to the Republican party, but I think they need to be comfortable with basic conservative principles (smaller government, lower taxes, a strong defense.)


C4P: A recent Politico article stated that, “Many top Republicans are growing worried that the party’s chances for reversing its electoral routs of 2006 and 2008 are being wounded by the flamboyant rhetoric and angry tone of conservative activists and media personalities, according to interviews with GOP officials and operatives.” This debate within the GOP about “tone” has been going on for some time. Do you believe that the GOP should moderate its tone to attract independent voters, or that the recent debates have been appropriate in this regard?

Latimer: NO. I am so delighted that these strategists – from Ed Gillespie to Pete Wehner and others – have outed themselves. They blame conservatives for Republican losses. These were the same types of gurus who told Dick Cheney to be silent in the face of criticism (while leaking against him.) They trashed Governor Palin after the election (after she was no longer of use to them.) And now they are telling Rush and Glenn and the tea partiers to shut up while they drive us off a cliff again. Even National Review – imagine this – is applauding candidates who pursue “non-ideological” campaigns and hide their conservatism. How absurd.

Everyone knows that these people were the ones who led George W. Bush to a 22 percent approval rating and gave us Speaker Pelosi and President Obama. I’ll pass on their advice.


C4P: A recent Rasmussen poll found that, “Just 15% of Republicans who plan to vote in 2012 state primaries say the party’s representatives in Congress have done a good job of representing Republican values.” Is there a true disconnect between “Beltway Republicans” and “Grassroots Conservatives”? If so, what do you see as the cause(s) for this, and do you agree with the GOP voters in the Rasmussen survey who said that the Congressional GOP has not done a good job representing Republican values?

Latimer: There is a HUGE schism between Beltway Republicans and grassroots conservatives. The Republican Party in DC is run by consultants and strategists who believe in margins and percentages over principles. Ronald Reagan didn’t start his campaigns by looking at polling numbers. He started with ideas.

I’m for throwing most members of Congress out. Bring back the part-time Congress of yesteryear and let these people get real jobs. They want to pay CEO’s based on performance? Well why not pay Congress the same way.

If you read my book, SPEECH-LESS, you’ll see that most member of Congress fancy themselves as the last vestiges of 17th century French aristocracy. They are out of touch and often delusional (which explains why they took such umbrage to the tea party movement.) To quote Dick Cheney, it’s time for them to go.


C4P: You’ve said that former President Bush rejected using the term “conservative movement” for a speech at CPAC. In your opinion, how did President Bush define the terms conservative/conservative movement/conservatism, and do you feel that he governed as a conservative? If not, do you feel that he was never a “true” conservative and advanced his agenda as planned? That the Beltway changed him? Or do you feel that he compromised conservative principles in some areas in order to advance other parts of his agenda?

Latimer: When President Bush first ran for the job, he called himself a “compassionate conservative.” As I say in my book, I thought that was a clever way to appeal to moderates. I didn’t think he actually meant it. But he did. I don’t think he ever let the Beltway change him – he was always the same person (to his credit.)

But as was once said about his father, Bush was conservative, but he wasn’t a conservative. That is, he didn’t share instinctively all of the principles of the Buckley-Goldwater-Reagan movement. In his first term, he did govern quite conservatively (though he also spent way too much money and never vetoed appropriation bills loaded with pork). But I think his conservatism was often a Rove-inspired tactic over a [deep-seated] heartfelt belief. As I say in my book, he told me he had redefined the Republican Party away from traditional conservatism. And he meant that. That doesn’t make him a bad person, of course. I still respect him and appreciate his service. But he wasn’t the kind of conservative I once thought he was.