A beginner's work in progress.......
by By Randolph T. Holhut
Published on September 30, 2005 By dabe In Politics
Randolph T. Holhut: 'The myth of competence in the Bush White House'
Posted on Thursday, September 29 @ 10:17:38 EDT

DUMMERSTON, Vt. - Do you remember how, right after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, we heard all the pundits talk about how great it was that we finally had grownups in charge of our government in a time of crisis?

Does anyone still believe that nonsense now? Who would, especially when one considers the breathtaking incompetence of the Bush administration, as well as the cronyism, the lack of accountability and the total stupidity that has haunted every enterprise from 9/11 to Iraq to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita?

There are two dynamics at work in the Bush White House. There's the guiding philosophy that politics are more important than governance. Then there's the carefully constructed myth of the "CEO President" and how the best principles and ideas of the private sector are transforming government.

We have seen the effects of both, and they haven't been good.

The political arm of the Bush White House is disciplined and focused. Everyone stays on message. Everything is done with a eye toward political considerations. Leakers and whistleblowers are rare. But that political discipline inevitably gets in the way of governing.

If everything is weighed for its ability to benefit the president and the Republican majority in Congress, inconvenient information - such as the pre-9/11 warnings that terrorists were determined to attack the U.S., or the pre-invasion warnings that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, or the pre-Katrina warnings that the Gulf Coast is inadequately prepared for a massive hurricane - tends not to be heeded if it conflicts with the prevailing ideology.

That's the reason why, when it comes to the job the president is supposed to be doing - running the country, Bush doesn't seem to know what he's doing. He is sheltered from dissenting opinions. His underlings, selected for their loyalty, know that offering dissenting opinions means a trip to the unemployment line. Everything is viewed through the prism of politics. Reality is whatever they say it is.

That leads to the next myth, the myth of private sector competence. There are more CEOs in the current administration than in any previous one. But the prevailing business thinking in the White House seems to be of the slash, burn and loot philosophy of Enron rather than any sort of responsible stewardship.

Next time you hear someone talk about the competence of the Bush administration, consider these facts. Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill since first taking office. In fact, he hasn't vetoed any bills, the longest streak in presidential history. That's because nothing reaches his desk with being thoroughly vetted by the GOP-controlled Congress. Because of this, combined with massive tax cuts and a 37 percent increase in federal expenditures since taking office, Bush has managed to increase the national debt by 12 percent, to nearly $8 trillion.

The cronyism that stuffed the Federal Emergency Management Agency with clueless political appointees instead of emergency managers was bad enough. Now, we're seeing the disbursement of multi-million dollar, no-bid, cost-plus contracts for the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast to the same Bush campaign donors which are profiting handsomely in Iraq - Haliburton, Bechtel and Fluor, to name a few.

Haliburton and Bechtel, by the way, are under investigation for overbilling the federal government for the reconstruction work in Iraq.

A well-run organization learns from its mistakes and doesn't repeat them. So why is the Bush administration handing out money to these and other companies that have proven track records of shoddy work and/or corrupt billing practices? Because, in the Bush White House, political loyalty means more than competence, so GOP donors end up at the front of the line.

A well-run organization doesn't farm out its most important tasks to cronies. So why was FEMA turned into a political patronage dumping ground? Because, in the Bush White House, politics are more important than governance.

A well-run organization doesn't look for alibis for its failures. So why does Bush always bring up the war on terrorism whenever anything else goes wrong? Because politically, the war on terrorism is the only card the Republicans have to play.

For the last four years, President Bush has managed to get away with running a nation based upon wishful thinking and political dogma. When things go wrong, he finds something or someone to blame. And that fine line between loyalty and steadfastness, and stubbornness and inflexibility, is routinely crossed.

You can't run a successful business that way. You certainly can't run a successful nation that way, either. If politics trumps responsible management, sound financial principles and overall competency, the result is a federal government that can't govern.


Comments
on Sep 30, 2005
Posting opinions of mental midgets does not further your arguements.  He has no more validity than you do, and in actuality, a damn sight less given his background.
on Sep 30, 2005
If nothing else, the Bush administration is the example used by the Sharon administration in Israel.... 'Do it wrong, do it your way, you always have the opposition to blame'.
All I can say is Thank God the age of Kings is lng gone... our leaders are elected... and UNELECTED!
on Sep 30, 2005
He has no more validity than you do, and in actuality, a damn sight less given his background.


Huh????? Guy, I think you need another cup of coffee.
on Sep 30, 2005
Ok, guy, I have re-read your above statement a few times and finally understand that, in fact, it was me that needed another cup of coffee. You were trashing the author, not dubya. Oh kay, I get it. But really, isn't it kind of lame to just trash the author rather than the message? Oh yeah, it's that "ad hominim" attack thing goin' on again.
on Sep 30, 2005

Huh????? Guy, I think you need another cup of coffee.

Nah.  I gave up caffeine 4 years ago.

on Sep 30, 2005

Ok, guy, I have re-read your above statement a few times and finally understand that, in fact, it was me that needed another cup of coffee. You were trashing the author, not dubya. Oh kay, I get it. But really, isn't it kind of lame to just trash the author rather than the message? Oh yeah, it's that "ad hominim" attack thing goin' on again.

I am not trashing the author.  I merely stated that his opinion is worthless given his background.  An opinion, to be of any worth, must at least contain some objectivity.  He has none.

on Sep 30, 2005
There is NO objectivity in ANYTHING comming out of the White House. Most economists do not agree with the Bush policies. Hell Greenspan and O'Neil told Bush DO NOT RETURN TO ANNUAL BUDGT DEFICITS!
on Oct 01, 2005
I am not trashing the author. I merely stated that his opinion is worthless given his background.


But, that is trashing the author. And, you haven't said what it is about his background that you find so objectionable. And, you still haven't commented on the article itself. From where I sit, that is a perfect example of an ad hominem attack.
on Oct 01, 2005
This is great - a liberal complaining that a President has not vetoed spending bills. The irony is rich - liberals sounding like Ronald Reagan circa 1980.

Classic liberal-think - "My ends are the only ends that matter, no matter how they are achieved. If someone uses my means to achieve their ends, they are to be condemned."

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Oct 01, 2005
This is great - a liberal complaining that a President has not vetoed spending bills.


There is no irony here, daiwa. None. He's got the entire legislative branch in his pocket, so by the time he gets the bills, they are good to go. He's never vetoed anything that gets paid off to Iraq, to his buddy contractors, to anything. However, the budgets he signs have already been vetted by his buddies to include the spending cuts for health care, education, environment, military health care and housing, veterans benefits, etc. He doesn't have to veto anything. It's already devoid of spending on any kind of social or environmental programs.

Dammmmm, you righties neocon lovers just spin shit without any facts. Continually. And, you're so blinded by the neocon spin, so blinded by your need to be right about them, that you dismiss facts out of hand when they don't meet the already vetted white wash, I mean house message. I don't get it. I hope I never do.
on Oct 01, 2005
Come on, dabe - the "dumbest president in history" who can't tie his shoes "has the entire legislative branch in his pocket"? You guys need to either give him the credit for absolute political mastery he apparently deserves or focus your complaints on Congress. He can't be the Wizard of Oz and Machiavelli at the same time.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Oct 02, 2005

But, that is trashing the author. And, you haven't said what it is about his background that you find so objectionable. And, you still haven't commented on the article itself. From where I sit, that is a perfect example of an ad hominem attack.

Yes I have.  read more carefully.  And I dont comment on opinions not of the authors (yours in this case) as I will debate the author, not the medium.  You could have written this, and I would debate you.  how can I debate you when this is just another's opinion?