Search This Blog

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

GWB incompetent, as opposed to competently objectionable?

...I’m not talking here about ideology, or even positions on issues of public policy. This is about basic competence in managing the government, and strong signs that it was sorely lacking for eight years. (Jonathan Bernstein @ A Plain Blog About Politics)

An interesting post on Bush's two terms, suggesting that the failures of our gov't during that time were due more to mismanagement through passivity than to active application of a destructive ideology (I came to it via the brief comment on it over at United States of Jamerica).


  1. Well, I, for one, never thought that W was actually the one calling the shots during his administration. And I never thought him competent in any way, shape or form.

    If you're looking for reading materials, you might be interested in a book called "Why the Christian Right is Wrong." It's an interesting look at politics over the last 10 or 15 years.

  2. Fair enough - I think what made me think about this article was less the suggestion that Bush was not in control (which has seemed fairly clear for some time), but that the people who were governing for him weren't particularly invested in the process either. I suppose what I should have called the post was "GWB's puppetmasters as incompetent as he was (though perhaps for different reasons), as opposed to competently objectionable?"

  3. Sorry, toots, didn't mean to give you a hard time. :) I think most, if not all, of the people behind W were in it for the money, to cash out as much as they possibly could in as short a time as possible. Why govern when you can make pots of cash instead?

  4. No hard time taken! It just made me think of how to say what I really meant, which is usually a good thing.

    Well, it's often good if I *don't* say what I really mean, but that's just when I need to keep my mouth shut altogether ;)