Forums | MacLife

*gives Tall a Robitussin bottle

Clears that right up.

The initial response was $4 million.

I don't think the amount of Aid given by the US to the recent disaster in Asia is a very scientific way of measuring how much work President Bush does in a day.



There, I went and said it, you got me bang to rights.

That's not an 'article' it's a "news analysis" more often referred to as an editorial or "op-ed" piece--in other words just peoples opinions, edited and written with the prejudice of the authors opinion.

And in the presidents defense, I'd say that in the early reports of this disaster the magnitude was way understated and a $35million dollar response to 15,000 lives lost was well within range. Now that it's clear that the death toll will exceed 150,000 lives-a $350million pledge is very generous.

Who's being "generous"?  Bush?  I don't think spending other people's money can ever qualify as "generous."

La Times?  Is that French?

That article is a messy bit of up-to-the-minute puffery, trying to infer some huge generalizations out of the length of time it took for Bush to become aware of what the U.S. response ought to be to an unanticipated cataclysm.  If this article is meant to be an pundit's summation of Bush's "style", the news regarding the tsunami is out of place, and if the article is meant to address Bush's response to the tsunami, it is far larger than it needs to be, since there isn't really that much to say as far as new facts.

I do agree that Bush is an evil assclown, but Edwin Chen only makes him look better by attacking Bush in such a poorly written way.

If I was to pick what I wanted it would probably be in between Clinton and Bush.

That's exactly what I always wanted, too - horny and brainless...

hehe, I need to think these statements through better.

In all honesty, I'm not sure how much I want any president micromanaging. I don't know if a governor could even handle a state without serious delegation. There's just too many things, too many details for any one guy to handle with expertise.
If I was to pick what I wanted it would probably be in between Clinton and Bush.

The quote says he worked short days and took long lunches/mid-day breaks. He probably worked 10 to 3 with a two hour lunch in-between from the sounds of it. That must of motivated those who served under him.

The flaw in your thinking is picking someone who is childish enough that they demand their boss works harder than they do to stay motivated and do the job.

In all honesty, I'm not sure how much I want any president micromanaging. I don't know if a governor could even handle a state without serious delegation. There's just too many things, too many details for any one guy to handle with expertise.
If I was to pick what I wanted it would probably be in between Clinton and Bush.

The quote says he worked short days and took long lunches/mid-day breaks. He probably worked 10 to 3 with a two hour lunch in-between from the sounds of it. That must of motivated those who served under him.

The flaw in your thinking is picking someone who is childish enough that they demand their boss works harder than they do to stay motivated and do the job.

I completely disagree. A leader almost by definition sets the tone for those bellow them as far as what is expected of them. A leader who is a slacker (bush) gives the message to his subordinates that slacking is okay.

For example, if my boss called in sick on a regular basis and did not have any health issues the message is that this is acceptable behavior for all. What is he going to do, reprimand his employees for something he does? [/i]

Leaders do not need to overextend themselves in order to inspire their inner circle.  If anything, a King Log gives truly ambitious underlings even more motivation to work hard.  Under Clinton, it was clear that no matter what, the Clintons would rule the White House.  But now, anyone can be president - will it be Rice?  Will it be Rumsfeld?  Will Cheney hold on to power?  It's all up for grabs, and the stakes are high - you don't think that's motivating?

It's a pain for foreigners trying to make sense of foreign policy.  Does Powell mean what he says? What's Rice's role; advisor to the president or policy representative? Is there any point in talking to  a marginalised Powell when Rice has the president's ear...unless it's an issue in Cheney's bailiwick in which case Libby is the person to talk to.....

It's always been like this to a degree, but very much moreso now due to the cult of secrecy and loyalty surrounding the president.

In all honesty, I'm not sure how much I want any president micromanaging. I don't know if a governor could even handle a state without serious delegation. There's just too many things, too many details for any one guy to handle with expertise.
If I was to pick what I wanted it would probably be in between Clinton and Bush.

The quote says he worked short days and took long lunches/mid-day breaks. He probably worked 10 to 3 with a two hour lunch in-between from the sounds of it. That must of motivated those who served under him.

The flaw in your thinking is picking someone who is childish enough that they demand their boss works harder than they do to stay motivated and do the job.

I completely disagree. A leader almost by definition sets the tone for those bellow them as far as what is expected of them. A leader who is a slacker (bush) gives the message to his subordinates that slacking is okay.

For example, if my boss called in sick on a regular basis and did not have any health issues the message is that this is acceptable behavior for all. What is he going to do, reprimand his employees for something he does? [/i]

Humm, let's try a different analogy.
The president picks generals to run departments, they in turn pick the lower brass that tells the noncoms that tell the privates what to do.
The president has to pick good generals. The generals have to run their departments. When needed, they give the president options and he tells them which option to proceed with.
It's not his job to research those options, only pick which he considers best.
It's not his job to carry out the execution of the chosen option.
Your talking about a manager, I'm talking about a ceo.

I completely disagree. A leader almost by definition sets the tone for those bellow them as far as what is expected of them. A leader who is a slacker (bush) gives the message to his subordinates that slacking is okay.

For example, if my boss called in sick on a regular basis and did not have any health issues the message is that this is acceptable behavior for all. What is he going to do, reprimand his employees for something he does? [/i]

Wellf, you need to keep in mind this isn't a normal office workplace where you expect the boss or supervisor to be at his desk pretty much any day of the week.

Actually, if the PotUS was at his desk all the time, I'd say there was a lot of stuff he'd be failing to look after.

It's simply not a 9-5 desk job. His being there or not should not really affect how others at the WH work. The secretaries (not Secretaries) and publicists and so forth - the whole West Wing lot - aren't going to slack off just because he's not around. THEY still all have bosses and deadlines and demands they're supposed to take care of.