Weekly Standard Throws Bush Down The Memory Hole

11:59 pm EST November 19th, 2007 | News | 12 Comments

I understand when political movements want to throw somebody embarassing away. Liberals cringe at the thought that Michael Dukakis was once the nominee for president from the Democratic party. Conservatives woke up in 1996 with a Bob Dole hangover. But Rupert Murdoch’s conservative The Weekly Standard is attempting something pretty audacious: erasing President Bush.

The main story and the cover are about Mitt Romney’s candidacy. No, the focus of the article isn’t Mitt Romney’s endless flip flops, his outright lying, or the people who lost their jobs to his venture capital firm. No, the central question the cover and article asks is if America is ready for a CEO president.

Is America ready for a CEO president?

“Inside the mind of the CEO President” (Time, July 2002)

“Much was made during the 2000 campaign of the fact that George W. Bush would be the first president to hold an MBA. The implication, cultivated by members of then-Gov. Bush’s campaign, was that he would approach the challenges of the presidency much as a CEO tackles the day-to-day tasks of running a company.” (Reason, July 2005)

“If the Iraq War Were a Corporation …How a real CEO president would turn it around.” (Slate, Feb. 2007)

“Bush has been called the C.E.O. president, but that’s just a catch phrase — he never ran anything of consequence in the private sector.” (NY Times, Oct. 2004)

CEO president? No, that never happened. Let’s do it again. We’re not bleeding enough as is.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

12 Responses to “Weekly Standard Throws Bush Down The Memory Hole”

  1. z_adura says:

    I don’t think there is anything necessarily wrong with a CEO president. If Lee Iacocca or Ross Perrot had won the presidency, I am certain they would have had success.

    George W. Bush was a terrible CEO and it should come as no surprise that he’s proved to be a terrible president.

  2. Iacocca was a big talker while Chrysler got bailed out by the Feds, but you’re right on Perot.

  3. “I don’t think there is anything necessarily wrong with a CEO president.”

    Running a business and running a government are two different things. I don’t think there’s a whole lot of crossover skills, other than pure organizational ones.

  4. megamoze says:

    I think the point here is that they sold Bush as the CEO president back in 2000 and are acting like that never happened.

  5. z_adura says:

    CS, there is more to being a CEO than organizing. A good CEO at a Fortune 500 company has to manage the public, investors, regulators and employees, all of which have competing interests. The only other executive positions of note are governors and generals.

    Oliver, not sure what you are thinking about Iacocca, but he never took any loans from the Feds. He did manage to get loan guarantees, which made Chrysler credit worthy again. Carter was certainly right to propose that legislation and Iacocca managed to make Chrysler competitive again (thanks to the minivan) and save 50k+ jobs. To me, that is impressive leadership.

  6. SpiderJ says:

    “Bush has been called the C.E.O. president, but that’s just a catch phrase — he never ran anything of consequence in the private sector.”

    This kinda befuddles me. I know they’re not a great team, but the Texas Rangers are a company “of consequence” when you consider it is one part of one of our largest industries.

    The fact that he never ran it well doesn’t mean he never ran it.

  7. SaveFarris says:

    The fact you think he never ran it well means you don’t know much about baseball. During Bush’s (Ranger) Administration, the team signed and/or developed Sammy Sosa, Ivan Rodriguez, Juan Gonzalez, Kevin Brown, Kenny Rogers, and Rusty Greer. Though some (like Sosa & Brown) were eventually traded, the players brought back in return along with the others were the building blocks that eventually went into the 1996, 98, and 99 AL West Champions, the only division championships the club has ever had.

  8. Repack Rider says:

    Bush “ran” the Rangers?

    Please.

    He had less than a 1% stake in the team, which was given to him even though his investment ($833,000 he got from insider trading of Harken stock) was chump change, and no one but the son of the president would have been permitted to buy in at that level.

    When he cashed out with $12 million more than his investment was worth, it became clear that the Rangers were nothing more than a scheme to give Bush money he hadn’t earned (I know, that’s redundant). If they let Bush think he “ran” the team, at least it kept him quiet.

  9. z_adura says:

    SaveFarris, Bobby Valentine and Kevin Kennedy were responsible for the players. Bush was responsible for eating hot dogs in the stands and mau-mauing the city government of Arlington to issue eminent domain cases so that they could build a new stadium. Bush was successful at enriching himself at taxpayers’ expense, but was pretty much a flop otherwise.

  10. SaveFarris: “The fact you think he never ran it well means you don’t know much about baseball. During Bush’s (Ranger) Administration, the team signed and/or developed…”

    Bush didn’t help develop those players, the coaches and general manager did that. He wasn’t hands on like Steinbrenner was.

    You’re wrong, again. Amazing how that works.

  11. Quaker in a Basement says:

    Though some (like Sosa & Brown) were eventually traded,

    If by “eventually” you mean, before the prime of their careers. Also known as “trading away talent.”

    Awesome, Farris!

  12. Quaker in a Basement says:

    Eventually…after Sosa played all of 25 games for the Rangers and hit exactly…ONE…of his 609 home runs.

    Yep. That’s the kind of CEO this country needs!