Quote:
Originally Posted by legion
Bush's management style is very different than Clinton's. Whereas Clinton had very public disagreements with his advisors (which the press loved), Bush has very quiet disagreements. I have a feeling that advisors are told when to resign, and it may be for screw-ups that happened years ago--but Bush will reward loyalty with a delayed resignation so that it is not tied to a scandal (making getting another job easier). The press absolutely hates this as they can't stir up a controversy to get someone fired
|
Not sure I see this. Did the foot-dragging on Rumsfield's resignation prevent him from being blamed for the Iraq mess? Did the too-long defense of Mike Brown prevent him from being damaged by the Katrina mess? Has the repeated praises of Gonzales kept him from being associated with the DOJ mess? No, no, and no.
If Bush really sticks with incompetent and mistake-riddled advisors as long as he does based on the sort of calculation you described, he is being very poorly advised. (Which is sort of the point.)
His refusal to recognize that one of his people has made a hash of things just makes him (Bush) look worse when he finally concedes. It expands the issue from the advisor's poor judgment to Bush's own judgment.