Replies

There is a benevolent meaning of the word "authoritarian" which refers to people who accept heirarchy and position power as a convenient method of getting things done.

The Bush inner circle seems to be like that. Any one them could be President -- they are all qualified -- and they all know it. But it says here that the one who got elected gets to sit at the head of the table. So with that out of the way, let's figure out how we're going to get all this stuff done.

Only the very best-managed companies look like that at the top. The more usual case is to have either (a) a bunch of ego-driven maniacs who are constantly shooting torpedoes into each other's divisions so as to look good themselves, or (b) an autocratic ruler surrounded by boot-licking "yes men" who couldn't manage their own way out of a paper bag.

The first type is characterized by point successes and setbacks that are often spectacular, but seem to go in no particular direction and often cancel each other out; the second type announces Big Plans but never produces results. The Johnson Administration was of the first type. Clinton's was the second.

This Bush Administration is one of the few times in history that we have had a group of truly top-flight people working as a team.

They could get a lot done.

This Bush Administration is one of the few times in history that we have had a group of truly top-flight people working as a team.

Good commentary.

I was thinking along similar lines in that Bush is and has been at his best. He expects his top people to be at their best and leads by example. Striving to be at their best on the job at hand is what gives them real power and effectiveness. Politics is off the radar screen in their personal realms. They do have to deal with foreign politics and politics inside our own government. It appears that the way they have done that is to say, "okay, we'll try it your way for awhile. You have important roles to add and we want to hear what you have to add."

Those that have something of substance and value to add are welcomed aboard. Others that show that their true colors are self-serving political agenda had their chance and made their choice. So be it.

It seems that rendering oneself -- be it an individual, government or organization -- irrelevant is almost contagious. But it's not. Certain people and groups have built their own-house-of-cards illusions and can't manage to get out of the way of themselves fast enough. We've witnessed it with the United Nations security council, certain Democrats, president Chirac and the French government and to somewhat lesser extent the German and Russian government.

Lets not forget that many media outlets are their own worst enemies. Two of the three big three networks, ABC and CBS, despite historical reference that shows they gain about 10% more viewers during big news stories have lost about 15% of their audience. Most of them picked up by FOX which serves twenty million fewer homes and the Internet.

They could get a lot done.

Gotta love it. George W. Bush is one shrewd poker player.

Only the very best-managed companies look like that at the top.

Good observation, but you'll never hear it from the press, at least not with proper emphasis or prominence.

Remember the transition? The press trapped themselves on that one with their own spin. Having predicted deep difficulties for an administration of questionable legitimacy attempting to govern a deeply divided nation, they were then forced to acknowledge the stunningly deft transition, and report the opinions of policy experts who hailed it as the most successful transition in the history of the modern presidency. As a bonus, many reminded their interviewers that the most successful transition previously had been that of Reagan, and that The Rapist's transition was inept and plagued with difficulties.

The press clearly hated having to report on this. The funny (and deeply satisfying) thing about it all was they might have been able to ho-hum their way past acknowledging this first notable accomplishment of the administration if they had not been so over the top in poisoning the atmosphere previously.

Still, some of the press did largely ignore the transition story, and those that didn't spun it explicity as being due to Cheney's deft management (which, one must admit, was proper attribution, except for the, "Bush is dumb, Cheney is the smart one," subtext) and spun it implicity as Bush being a lucky idiot, at best benefiting intially from an easy going (and stupid) geniality.

The full story was amost never told, and as proof I doubt even most FReepers ever heard it: How, when the press was portraying Bush as fecklessly idling at the ranch, Cheney had his transition team doing a highly detailed and penetrating study of previous presidential transitions, including exstensive interviews with dozens of key figures. They produced a thick study from this research, focusing on what had worked and what hadn't. The resulting insights were used to construct a transition plan for Dubya's administration that systematically layed out philosophy, priorities, procedures and responsibilities and that averted the usual confusions. Everyone was clear on their roles, there was minimal fuss, and Team Bush hit the ground running.

I've always felt that those who've claimed Bush "grew in office" after 911 just weren't paying attention early one. It was clear to me from day one (as much as it possibly could be) that this would be an exceptional presidency.