Safavian ‘probably not’ qualified

In terms of the criminal trial, it’s important that [tag]David Safavian[/tag], the Bush administration’s former top procurement official, acknowledged yesterday that he provided “a lot of insight and advice,” including government information not available to the public, to [tag]Jack Abramoff[/tag]. Since [tag]Safavian[/tag] was arrested last September for doing secret favors for [tag]Abramoff[/tag], his former employer, it was a key admission.

But for political purposes, I think this development was even more entertaining.

Safavian conceded to Justice prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg that he most likely didn’t believe he had the qualifications to be chief of staff at the Government Services Administration, the position he held when he had the dealings with Jack Abramoff he is accused of covering up.

“Did you think you were [tag]qualified[/tag] for the job?” Zeidenberg asked.

“Probably not, actually,” Safavian said.

What a helpful admission. In fact, I can think of dozens of top administration officials who might have similar responses to the same inquiry.

For example, I’d love to hear the answer to the “Did you think you were qualified for the job?” question from former Small Business Administration head Hector Barreto, a former Republican fundraiser who had no experience or relevant qualifications. Or maybe his replacement, Steven Preston, who has the same problem.

For that matter, why don’t we also pose the same question to Stewart Simonson, the Health and Human Services Department’s point man “on matters related to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies,” despite a complete lack of experience in the fields of public health and/or national security. And how about Douglas Hoelscher, who went from being a low-level White House staffer, arranging presidential travel, to a top post in the Department of Homeland Security despite no experience at all?

We could also ask Ellen Sauerbrey, who Bush appointed to be Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration, despite having literally no background in setting up refugee camps, delivering emergency supplies, and/or mobilizing international responses to humanitarian crises. We could then ask Julie Myers, who Bush named to help lead the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, despite the fact that she has no management experience at any level.

This list just never seems to end. Safavian’s admission was helpful, but we’d probably get the same response out of most of the administration’s political appointees. There might as well be a “No Policy Experts Need Apply” sign hanging in the West Wing.

What if we ask George Walker Bush POTUS the same question? “Mr. Bush, do you think you are qualified for your current position?” A draft doging, failed business man who rode his ivy league legacy all the way to a C average – sounds qualified to me.

  • No intelligent thought or ability that would show up the Main Man in the White House is needed.

  • Or the more abreviated question for Bush…
    “Do you think ?”

    Al Gore on Bush: “I guess what surprises me most is his incuriosity. ….He’s clearly a smart man, but it is a puzzle that he would ask no questions about important matters.”

  • He’s the CEO president. Unfortunately he’s the Enron CEO president.

    I’m beginning to wonder if Gore is as smart as I thought. “[Bush is] clearly a smart man”?

    Maybe it was a joke.

  • I’ve heard this before: “The guy/girl’s smart but he/she makes bad decisions.”

    Then he/she ain’t smart. End of story.

    Smart leaders
    a) learn from their and others mistakes
    b) change when they realize their errors
    c) recognize the talents of other people

    This just goes to show an IQ test/going to a good school/or genetic background is not the best barometer of intelligence.

    In my books, a person who shows a general pattern of bad decisions and picks the wrong people is a stupid leader regardless of their IQ. Therefore, Bush is an idiot.

  • #5

    Smart people certainly learn from their mistakes, change when they realize their errors, and recognize the talents of other people. I would also say that smart people recognize that they do not possess all the answers and actively encourage and promote other smart people.

    However, we, as a society, still make the critical error of thinking that degrees are truly meritocratric and believe that highly degreed people are smart. This is not true. History is replete with credentialled people who believe that they are smart (in fact, smarter than everybody else) and possess the single and sole answer to the problems presented before them.

    A very good example is Hillary Clinton. She had the opportunity to ensure universal health care in 1993, but her refusal to consider alternatives or cooperate with Senate Republicans, as well as holding closed door meetings, doomed her goals. This is a prime example of a credentialled member of our “meritocratic” society who believes that she is smart and that no one should ever stand in her way. This is exactly why I will never vote for her.

    To me, achievements speak more than “merit” which is often achieved through money and connections.

    The people that Bush promote are actively stupid or partisan hacks, but do you want to bet that they will use their newfound positions as entries on a burnished resume to get even better jobs, connections, and money? I think that I’d win that bet — the Bush administration is a shining example of incompetence ever failing upwards, starting with the Main Man in the White House.

  • ? Smart is as Smart does ?

    Really, I think Gore got it right on This Week, and he was quoting George Will basically (always quote Will when the issue is conservatism, never quote Will when the issue is liberalism – my motto).

    Boy George II is “Incurious”.

    Why does Boy George II not what to rethink an issue? Why does he never correct obvious errors? Why does he get stuck in obvious ruts and quagmires? Why does he stick with the same failed subordinates and policies?

    Because he lacks the will to practice introspection. Because it HURTS! His brain is so destroyed by alcohol and other recreactional drugs that he may be able to think once, but he can not stand to think twice. It would be like trying to ream out the limited neural pathways he still retains and lay down new thought patterns. It just does not work for him.

    And this is the best candidate the Republican’ts could offer the American People in 2000.

  • Dan, Wisp

    Bush has indeed learned from mistakes and changed accordingly. The trouble is, he learned from the political mistakes of his father and Nixon, who put policy and power, respectively above politics to their detriment, and so Bush has made sure politics is all that matters.

  • Comments are closed.