‘Insight’ into how the CEO President delegates

As part of my ongoing fascination with the oddly anti-Bush articles appearing in Insight magazine, an off-shoot of Sun Myung Moon’s far-right Washington Times, the latest issue suggests the hands-off president has reached a point in which he’s delegating almost everything.

President Bush has decided to stay out of the lion’s share of decisions made by his administration.

Sources close to the administration said that over the last year, Mr. Bush has chosen to focus on two issues, leaving the rest to be decided by Cabinet members and senior aides. They said the issues are Iraq and the Republican congressional campaign in the 2006 elections.

“Lots of important issues that deal with national security are never brought to the president because he doesn’t want to deal with them,” a source familiar with the White House said. “In some cases, this has resulted in chaos.” […] The sources said Mr. Bush’s lack of involvement on most issues has led to numerous errors in judgment.

On the substantive issue, this article suggests the president is unengaged on a variety of key issues, and his lack of “leadership” has undercut White House effectiveness. Given what we’ve seen of Bush, this is hardly persuasive. Hasn’t our CEO President always delegated the details? Is there any evidence that the Bush gang’s judgment is better when the president is making key decisions on his own?

As my friend Michael J.W. Stickings noted, the country very well may be better off with in dealing with crises such as the war in Iraq if Bush “were to disengage and delegate.”

Nevertheless, the Insight article’s general tone is one of criticism. The piece describes a dysfunctional White House process and a president who can’t be bothered to deal with the details of governing.

For those keeping score at home, this is the sixth Insight article in just the past few months that casts the Bush gang in an unflattering light. Two weeks ago, it was a piece on Cheney becoming a political liability who will be thrown overboard after the midterm elections. Two weeks before that, it was “the largest crackdown in decades against whistleblowers in government.” The week before, it was an item on Karl Rove threatening to “blacklist” any Republican who goes against the president on warrantless-wiretaps. In January, Insight quoted “administration sources” talking about internal turmoil at the Bush White House. In November, Insight ran an item explaining that Bush has become melancholy and paranoid.

I know I’ve been on this for a while, but this seems like a terrific idea for an expose for anyone with contacts in Moonie circles. We are, after all, talking about the far-right Washington Times’ “sister publication,” which keeps publishing pieces that make Bush look bad.

I’m glad, but I can’t figure it out.

All you have to do to see what we’re missing is check out the prime minister’s questions on C-SPAN on Wednesdays- it’s great fun & shows what our system could be and what caliber of leaders we could have, if only we could find a way to end the culture of corruption that gets a man like Bush into such a high office.

  • I can understand that the president wishes not to preside. After all, he’s botched absolutely everything he’s ever touched, and he’s lazy as hell, and he’s fighting a liquor/cocaine habit, and he sounds stupid every time he opens his mouth, and his daughters sound (when stories leak out) like the last thing a father would be proud of, and there’s this quagmire thing, and Halliburton, and Katrina, and Social Security, and ….

    But it hard to understand this string of articles which make him look bad. Which is to say, describe him and his administration of the most powerful nation on Earth.

  • Good to know that the President is making the 2006 political races more important than national security.

  • BTW, we had a CEO Mayor (Ray Nagin) and a CEO President when Katrina hit. No wonder N.O. is such a mess. One of the candidates for mayor, Foreman, has said he will be a CEO mayor. I am leaving the city for good….

  • Mr. Bush has chosen to focus on two issues..,.

    The good news is that Bush will impact the republican campaign with his magic touch

    and the bad news is that Bush will impact Iraq with his magic touch .

    This guy is the King Midas of crap . Everything he touches becomes fecal.

  • That was the most amazing part of the article to me. I can understand Dubya focusing on Iraq, since even he isn’t dense enough not to realize that it will be his lasting legacy, but to have his only other concern be congressional races? It just goes more toward my theory about him and his administration — they are all about politics and have little or no interest in actual governance.

  • Is he focusing on the 2006 elections to TRY to get the Republican Congress to pay attention to him?

    I mean, ignoring his budget, privitization scheme (as in conman), Dubai Ports World, etc. I don’t think the Republicans see Bush as that important to their reelection, or at least not in a positive way.

  • Mr. Bush’s lack of involvement on most issues has led to numerous errors in judgment.

    This statement is also particularly strange when you consider the implication – that Bush’s involvement doesn’t produce errors in judgement.

    My guess about the Moonies’ reasoning is that they’ve finally decided to throw Bush overboard. The right isn’t traditionally conservative anymore, they haven’t followed it with any honesty for a long time, they are rather a personality cult, with Bush as its head. Anyone who questions dear leader is kicked out, no longer “conservative” when they use the term, but “liberal” in their slanderous version of the word. This is somewhat similar to the evangelical churches from which this movement, for the most part, derives. Most of those churches are led, not by any intellectual or thoughtful organization of theists, but by charismatics, snake-oil salesmen, people like Pat Robertson. What is all-important to the right is dogma. Follow the dogma faithfully and we will follow you. Follow the dogmatic leader faithfully and we will accept you. But if the leader doesn’t follow the dogma faithfully (ie not being tough enough on abortion, not being forceful enough in discriminating against homosexuals,) the cult will turn on him. And the Moonies have decided to turn on him.

  • I’m glad, but I can’t figure it out.
    It is a sinister plot by Moon. First attract the attention of liberala with anti-Bush stories. Eventually these liberals will subscribe to Insight so that they don’t miss a single story on the latest failings of Bush. Once they have these subscriptions, they will start to read all of the articles in the magazine. Some of these article will be written in such a fashion as to brainwash the readers into becoming Moonies. World domination follows.

    Makes sense doesn’t it? No?

  • Maybe this is Rove’s way of finding out who the true believers are in the Republican Party. Those who don’t stand up for Bush or don’t vehemently attack the “stories” are balck-listed.

    Sound crazy?

  • “Balck-listed”,
    means they’re forced to watch back to back episodes of “Perfect Strangers”

    Need sleep………………………..

  • Comments are closed.