Ya know...
Jan. 10th, 2008 03:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bovilSo I read this in the paper yesterday:
It's not without irony that the story of Ron Paul's "Ron Paul Political Report" is hitting CNN and the rest of the media (well, except Fox News, who apparently doesn't report so you can't decide) now.
The Pajamas Media article even has links to scans of whole report pages.
Now we're talking about something that Congressman Paul claims he didn't write. I bet he's even telling the truth. It probably was his newsletter editor.
It's still as big a problem.
You often see candidates throwing blame on their campaign staffers. National campaigns are large organizations, subordinates will do stupid things without anybody above approving it.
That's still a problem.
Ron Paul's newsletter, though, wasn't a national campaign. There weren't layers of management separating him from what was happening. There weren't thousands of employees and volunteers that needed to be managed. It was a political fanzine for all practical purposes.
The federal government dwarfs a national campaign. It's a much bigger management job. If Ron Paul failed to manage a little newsletter all those years, he shouldn't be managing the country.
(Of course, by that standard, GWB's spectacular management failures should have disqualified him out of the gate.)
It's not without irony that the story of Ron Paul's "Ron Paul Political Report" is hitting CNN and the rest of the media (well, except Fox News, who apparently doesn't report so you can't decide) now.
The Pajamas Media article even has links to scans of whole report pages.
Now we're talking about something that Congressman Paul claims he didn't write. I bet he's even telling the truth. It probably was his newsletter editor.
It's still as big a problem.
You often see candidates throwing blame on their campaign staffers. National campaigns are large organizations, subordinates will do stupid things without anybody above approving it.
That's still a problem.
Ron Paul's newsletter, though, wasn't a national campaign. There weren't layers of management separating him from what was happening. There weren't thousands of employees and volunteers that needed to be managed. It was a political fanzine for all practical purposes.
The federal government dwarfs a national campaign. It's a much bigger management job. If Ron Paul failed to manage a little newsletter all those years, he shouldn't be managing the country.
(Of course, by that standard, GWB's spectacular management failures should have disqualified him out of the gate.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-01-11 04:49 am (UTC)Actually, as far as having success up on the Hill and accomplishing his legislative agenda in an expeditious fashion, George Bush Jr. fared pretty well for the first few years of his terms. Mind you, a lot of that got moved along by 9/11. What might've gotten bogged down in Congress had there not been any other more pressing issues got zipped through instead once the Towers came down.
I'm not saying what he got done was fully agreeable, just that he did get it done and was well served by those around him.
I also have absolutely no doubt that had 9/11 not happened during his first term that Bush would've been but a single term president. No doubt in my mind. There's too much water under that bridge to even begin speculating about what the political landscape would've looked like here in the US had there been no successful terrorist attack during those years.
You remember the whole Enron failure and "secret oil exec meetings" scandals of 2001? Those had the potential to be a real albatross around Dubya's neck. Come 9/11, Bush slipped that yoke right quick. Just shows how utterly superfluous those "major issues" were to begin with.
Madoc