Friday, April 28, 2006

From Krugman's column, which by the way, you may be able to access for free via your local library's web site:
The history of FEMA and other agencies during the Clinton years shows that a president who is serious about governing can rebuild effective government without renaming the boxes on the organizational chart.

On the other hand, the history of the Bush administration, from the botched reconstruction of Iraq to the botched start-up of the prescription drug program, shows that a president who isn't serious about governing, who prizes loyalty and personal connections over competence, can quickly reduce the government of the world's most powerful nation to third-world levels of ineffectiveness.


Why isn't this the "narrative" on Bush? It seems fairly obvious and simple to this news consumer.


Post a Comment

<< Home